Should there be an investigation into the radicalization of Muslims in the US? (Answer: yes!)
Should Peter King be doing the investigation? (answer: no!)

These are two different questions, and should be treated as such. To say that the investigation should not occur because the chairman has issues is just a smokescreen to obscure.

We all agree that Rep. King is a putz. (yes, in the Yiddish sense of the word...)
Can we all agree that the radicalization of young US Muslims is an issue as well?

Exactly,
1. Yes he has a poor history and can rightfully be called a hypocrite. But he IS the head of Homeland Security, go ahead and complain he should not head that agency, but he does and in that role is in charge of such investigations. GA put it quite well calling his past in to question as a smokescreen. I am not suggesting his past be overlooked at all, certainly keep that in mind and if it seems to color his opinions in any way, call him on it. I would prefer another person headed this investigation but you simply can not dismiss him since his position demands he be a part of it.
2. The government may well be spending money on this already, until we know what this is all about, how can you so easily dismiss this investigation?

What one group is most responsible for most terrorism? I know of liberals who think this should be ignored, why is beyond me, if we have a common denominator we should most certainly pursue this. If we did some investigating and found the overwhelming majority of terrorists were say red heads, then we should give redheads a closer look as well. All Muslims are not bad, the overwhelming majority are fine and decent people, but we do know that most terrorists are Muslim extremists, that would indicate we should do more and more to investigate and infiltrate such groups. To say otherwise or to try and change the focus to someones past history does nobody any good and simply suggests we wear blinders in a politically correct sort of way.

My neighbor is a great guy, he's Lebanese and looks very "Mideastern" he is a caterer and works closely with the airport and private airlines, he has all kinds of stories regarding the extra attention he gets simply because of his looks. He does not "like" it but he himself says he doesn't blame anyone and they are simply doing their job correctly. Now, he would be furious if they banned him from areas because of his ethnicity, he is investigated and let through. THAT he says he can live with and appreciate. He faces this at least once a week, and has no problem, why do liberals have more of an issue than he does?

There's a difference between focusing a greater amount of your law enforcement resources at the higher risk groups (which is a no-brainer) and creating a completely pointless Congressional inquiry just so you can showboat at their expense. Nothing useful is going to come out of these hearings, but maybe a few more American muslims might become radicalised by them.

Frankly I think that Peter King's active collusion with terrorists is far worse than the kind of passive acquiesence in radicalisation that he's setting up this inquiry to rail against.

The cost of the hearings is minimal and inconsequential but if you feel such a hearing is going to enrage so many more terrorists, then that might be a reason to not have them. I seriously doubt this is going to add anything to the radical extremists side at all. An investigation will get them all riled up more than they are? Sounds more like sticking our head in the sand to me, pretend the problem doesn't exist and ignore it mentality. Until we have the investigation, we can hardly determine what (if anything as suggested) comes from it. With moderate Muslims also taking part, maybe something GOOD can come out of this? Maybe, just maybe other moderates will be able to take something from it to pass along helping to diffuse things? We just don't know though I do tend to agree, I doubt much will come out of this either, we just can't say for certain

It would be great to hold a hearing on injustices suffered by American Muslims during the last 10 years. I've heard a lot of anecdotal information about Guantanamo, air travel, and other situations, but I don't think it has made it through the American psyche.

Are Congressional Hearings about "getting the facts" or are they about politcal grandstanding. Creating a media event that will persuade the populace that action is required? Or are they about political opportunism. The chairmen and its members hoping to get a moment in the spotlight to polish their credentials as "wise men or women".

I kind of doubt its about getting the facts. Surely that is better done in different manner. King really wants the facts consider this from Washington Post today

Meanwhile, there have been efforts to actually measure the sentiment in American mosques.

University of Kentucky professor Ihsan Bagby in 2004 published a study of Detroit mosques that concluded that approximately 93 percent of mosque participants endorse both community and political involvement and more than 87 percent of mosque leaders support participation in the political process. Most were registered to vote and "because of these moderate views, mosque participants cannot be described as isolationists, rejecters of American society or extremists." (Some conservatives have noted that the study also found strong support for universal health care, affirmative action and Islamic law in Muslim-majority nations, as well as deep concern about immorality in the United States.)

King said he was unaware of the Detroit study.

source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/03/peter_kings_claim_about_radica.html?hpid=topnews
The key line being King was unaware. You'd think if he was really obesssed about this area he'd be aware of key research don't you?

As for the cost of the hearings....
What is "minimal and inconsaequential"?
And does this factor in the potential damage to the people who might be involved, or the damage to the political tolerance? If, as King has done in the past, all he does is jump on unsubstantiated claims by Shiekh Kabbani then what level of knowledge will be gained...
Mccarthy claimed he knew people too, and those claims ruined peoples lives.
And poor Barry Bonds.... well, maybe not him.
I do hope this political theatre brings Kings past to the forefront and he can explain to some one on national television how he was pallin around with terrorists for so long. Now that would be good theatre.

I think that little statistic on it's own does nothing but support the other side Ricky.
First off, I don't think the big problem comes from American Muslims but rather those from the Mideast. But of those homegrown terrorists, this stat shows limited info but can we assume the other 7% are possibly militant? What are the stats for Christian Churches and Jewish Temples? If they are say 99%, then we have some shocking numbers, what if these others are only 50%? The bottom line is we have far more Muslim Terrorists than any other group.
I see the number varies greatly as to how many Muslims are in America
http://www.allied-media.com/AM/AM-profile.htm
lets go with the 6.7 million number
if only one tenth of one percent are militant terrorists, that gives us 6700 terrorists!
seems like a big problem to me regardless of the majority, I don't think anyone is condemning the majority of Muslims but rather those who are militant and it is the Muslim community that has this "issue" to bring up statistics that show 99.9% are wonderful people doesn't do anything now does it?

Tom

I think that little statistic on it's own does nothing but support the other side Ricky.
but can we assume the other 7% are possibly militant?

How can we asssume the other 7% are militant? Just because?
You are bizarre. The key line being King was unaware.

You're ruminations remind me of all the dot-com start up business plans I saw from from the 90's. "If we only get 1% of the market we'll be millionares!!!!!" Ah if only.... I had so many shares.

What the research I quoted, seemed to prove is that, in Detroit, the vast majority of mosques are full of moderate imams who seem to preach community involvement and acceptance and participation in the political process...
What Kings ignorance shows is that he seems to be intellectual incurious.
What your mathematical ruminations do is just silly. You live in a massive nation. There are all kinds of scary scenarios that can be calculated from Big Numbers but aren't grounded in any evidence.
For example: 6% of Americans are suffering some sort of major mental illness.... From that number how many mass shooters can you calculate? (That there are so few relative to the 6% totality, should tell you that astonishingly few mentally ill people are violent.)
The point being, you have to explain why your numbers have any validity. Why is it it possible that there are 67,000 "terrorists" amongst the Islamic community. And if there are why are they so incredibly unproductive at or uncommitted to their missions? (How many "acts of terror from domestic sources" can you account for in the last decade? Surely if your 67,000 number iis reasonable there'd be more going on...)
If I understand correctly the idea that King seeks to understand and explore through these hearings is that Mosques are a source of radicalization of Muslims generally. Please explain how testimony of the type we see at most congressional hearings is going to further law enforcements understanding OR the Islamic communities understanding OR even the community at larges' understanding? The last time hearings on this matter were held, 1998, they offered up the original disinformation that King keeps quoting. (See Washington Post article)
If all we get is conjecture, imagined scenarios, and hyperbole .... its going to do nothing but increase the tension between Muslims and other Americans . If on the other hand there is research presented of the kind King was unaware of and which i quoted, then perhaps an understanding of the sanity that apparently prevails in most Mosques might alleviate some of that tension.
I question whether King has any interest in increasing understanding so much as ratcheting up unreasoning fear like the kind that attributes plausability to any kind of nonsense estimation of the "muslim terrorists lurking" in the US.
As a former terrorist sympathiser himself, though, he might gain credibility if he came forward to explain how it is that he understands first hand, the minds of those who would use terror as a weapon. That too, I doubt he'll do.

No, the intellectually incurious one is you and your statistic that proves absolutely NOTHING.
So what, the vast majority of Muslims are wonderful people, I agree with that statistic. They are indeed nice, the problem you want to ignore, and nothing you post above shows you wish to face the facts are that the vast majority of today's terrorists, both abroad and at home are ...Muslim!
Are we to ignore that little statistic and pretend everything is fine, because as you say, Most are fine?
Or do we investigate why they seem to come from this one common link?

RickyP is willing to ban all privately owned automatic weapons based upon a small percentage of them using them for criminal agenda. Yet when a similarly small percentage of Muslims are using their religion to advance a criminal agenda, there is backlash and reticence to investigate.

One must ask themselves why? Could it be that automatic weapons cause physical harm? Perhaps, but so does Radical Islam. Could it be Freedom of Religion in the Constitution protects Muslims? No, that couldn't be it, because the 2nd Amendment does not specifically mention Automatic weapons, anymore than Islam is delineated in the 1st Amendment. Hmmm... What could be the reason? Perhaps agenda?

I don't disagree that the issue of radicalisation should be investigated. I'm less than convinced that the forum of Congressional Hearing is the best way to go about it. I'm in total agreement with Sass about King being totally unsuitable to be the one instigating and running such a thing.

By the way, the one most common trait among terrorists is that theytend to be young males.

Kumbaya, Danivon.

Tom

Are we to ignore that little statistic and pretend everything is fine, because as you say, Most are fine?
Or do we investigate why they seem to come from this one common link?

What Neal said:

Tom, the government is already spending billions on counter-intelligence targeted at the Muslim community, arrests and/or inquiries are made on a daily basis. It's Congress' role to provide oversight to these activities. Let them conduct a inquiry to that end and make adjustments as needed.

Further, a congressional hearing of the sort King is holding is not "investigative" All it is is a forum for the "witnesses" who will provide nothing of substance, nor anything that they havn't expounded upon in other forums. . But then King knows how this works, having learned from his early job assisting Roy Cohn. McCarthy's lawyer.

Green
Please explain how it is that Islam is the same as automatic weapons? BTW, those terrorists you worry about - have no problem acquiring automatic weapons when they want to act on their hatred. At least with my solution we'd solve that.

The next time there is a mass shooting using automatic weapons will Rep King hold a congressional hearing on the danger represented by automatic weapons? (You know the numbers on deaths from old fashioned mass shootings and deaths from domestic muslim terrorism don't you?)

Are you choosing to willfully ignore the dichotomy of your position? I am against the criminal use of automatic weapons, just as I am against the criminal use of Islam. You use the Constitution to defend one, but not the other. Seems a bit disingenuous to me.

P.S. There have been hearings on mass shootings, even attempts to outlaw them (eg.. the "Brady Bill) Did King hold them? No. Should he be the one to hold these? No.

BTW, Are you so self-deluded that you would think that outlawing automatic weapons would keep them away from terrorsits? Much less the criminal population at large?

Danivon
I actually thought about that sort of "argument" (I know you are not serious about it mind you)
Just in case someone were to try and use that sort of defense

Yes, most terrorists are men, most have dark hair as well?
And if that were all the info we had, we should also use that to probe further.
But can we further fine tune this statistic?
We can pretty much eliminate men from Japan, men from Europe, men from South America
Most men in these areas have dark hair but few are terrorists, we work our way down and find men from the Muslim religion are where "most" (not all of course) of the terrorists come from. If we can further fine tune things and find that all are Capricorns ...better yet! But so far we know that the majority are Muslim and that can not be ignored, that being said, nobody is claiming all Muslims are terrorists, of course most are fine people, People in general are pretty good regardless of religion, ethnicity, whatever, but if we can see a common denominator we can not ignore it!

and King,
bad guy, no argument there, do certainly watch him and any "angle" he may play. But due to his position (that he should not have ...why has Obama allowed this is a good question, why are the Obama backers so silent on this?) it's pretty hard to say he should have no part in this. His position almost demands it.