He's writing a ticket for anyone who identifies with Islam from any country to have their privacy rights violated. Even if they have a clean record and travel over honestly, they're coded as suspects. If Homeland Security starts targeting these so-called "clean skin" terrorists, it will clarify that a second class status is indeed implemented on anyone who tries to cross over to America.

It's more explicit international racial profiling. And way to slip in this coded jab, Chertoff:

Mr Chertoff rejected the idea that the Iraq war had made the world more dangerous.

"Those that are inclined to be radicalised will find a reason to be radicalised no matter what's going on in the world."

i'm honestly confused. being someone who prefers direct talk, i get lost in the morons' coded langauge. (why has it become acceptable to allow so much coded language? the electorate doesnt even know the actual conversation????) so...he is targeting followers of Islam who are white? he does mean "white" when he says "clean skin," right?

here's mine:

"Those that are inclined to be warmongers, mass-murderers and torturers will find a reason to wage war, murder, and torture no matter what's going on in the world."

I agree; it is confusing. (I guess we are living in the era of newspeak, huh?)

"Clean skin" allegedly means "clean record" -- no forged documents, no criminal records, no significant infractions. Basically, the person doesn't have a clouded past. The elements of "clean" appears to have similar coding with the elements of what "white" is coded to mean -- innocent, no civil disobedience, no fraudulent claims to access, no *significant* marks of insubordination.

I'd hope in his catch-all designation that white followers of Islam with legitimate records would be included -- for the policy to make any logical sense. (I'd really like better explanations and no racial/national/ethnic profiling, period, but I suppose that's too difficult to manage.)

But from the way I read it (and you know I can be notorious for my reading patterns), it's a way to track Muslims of ANY DESCENT, regardless of whether or not they have any terrorist affiliations. The article's rather explicit about the concerns of an intelligent "Muslim immigrant" population, as you've identified. The "immigrant" qualifier may lead to white practitioners of Islam being excluded from the stricter measures. With more answers come a lot of questions, though; my mind's still trying to grasp everything that's going on here.

hmm. so where does the "skin" part come in? where is his definition given? where is it online? can you link me? because "clean skin" refers to skin in my mind. i need to see proof that he is such a moron he would use the word "skin" to mean anything but skin. wait no i don't. i know he's a moron.

As far as the term "clean skin" specifically, from what I've read it appears that it's a term of art in the counterterrorism and intelligence professions, referring to someone without a history or record that would make him or her more suspicious. If Wikipedia's article on the subject is correct, the term originally had to do with cattle smuggling, and whether or not the cattle were branded.

Now, Chertoff shouldn't have used the term, for a number of reasons. Especially in context of his record, and of the rest of his statement — and since there's no reason most of his audience would have ever heard the term "clean skin" before, let alone know what it means — it certainly does sound like a racial reference; so it's stupid from a PR perspective. Second, the introduction of a particular specialized field's technical jargon into general discourse is almost never a good idea, because it usually leads to this kind of confusion. And third, Chertoff claimed "clean skin" referred to potential terrorists/criminals with legitimate, non-forged papers, which though related doesn't appear to be how the term is used by, you know, the people who actually use the term in a professional capacity.

I'm not about to defend Chertoff for anything — not the rest of the crap he's saying here, and not the use of the term "clean skin" either, because now he's taken this term that doesn't appear to be racist in origin, doesn't appear to be used in a(n overtly) racist way, and was a useful and meaningful term to a particular population of specialized professionals, and he's inserted it into public dialogue with a different meaning, and in a racist context, thus simultaneously telling Americans they can't trust those dark-skinned Muslims, even if they're citizens or legal, fully-document immigrants, and making the lives of counterterrorism specialists more difficult.

I still don't understand why the motherfucker didn't lose his job a year ago.

Whoops, looks like Sylvia covered this ground while I was composing this...

ah....thank you smadin.

I'm sorry, Nez; I thought you spotted it in the article! It's mentioned/alluded to twice.

Mr Chertoff, a former federal prosecutor, said that one of his biggest worries was that "unknown terrorists" - such as most of the 7/7 bombers, who were British citizens with no criminal record or intelligence traces - could use the visa waiver scheme to enter and attack America. [...]

Zacharias Moussaoui, one of the September 11 plotters, was a French citizen who entered America without a visa. Mr Chertoff said that "we can do a good job with the known terrorists, if we have their name, or if we've previously arrested them and have their fingerprint on file" but a more potent threat was the terrorist with no known form.

"The fear has always been the so-called 'clean skin' - that's a person whose documents are completely legitimate, are not forged."

And smadin, it's cool -- your analysis is more spot-on than mine. :)

oh sylvia you know i don't actually read those articles. i just link them so i have an excuse to make cool fotoshop pictures. you're the lawyer type, you are genetically predisposed to pore over obfuscation and suss out the bits of sense. me, i'm just born wanting to play in puddles of color and sound. sort of like brain damage.

thank you both. chertoff lovers.

The Daily Telegraph is often nicknamed the Daily Torygraph as it is virtually an in house rag for the conservative party. His interview ties in with that papers and the 'anglosphere' loonies desire to have an english speaking (white) union. It's also pressure to enact more patriot act like legislation in Europe which is generally seen as too leftwing by Bush/Blair. And again it attempts to pretend antagonism towards the imperial powers is much more to do with islamofascismcommuculturewars instead of outrage at our actions in pursuit of oil, profit and control and domestic racism.
Fuck Skeletor.

word...and i don't know what is the deal with all this recurring talk about an all-English-speaking union! are these people admitting that the Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe is invalid? after all, the provisions for Spanish to exist side by side with English in the (SW) land taken from Mexico were established in that same treaty, the one that changed "Mexican" land to "American."

i need to do a post soon bringing that up again. Spanish is the native language in parts of this country, the older language, the one that was here when English "arrived." If you claim that land as America, it is by the treaty that also insures the right of the use of the Spanish language. (update: more on this here).

thanks for clueing me in on the torygraph.

De nada — I owe you thanks, your writing is a gift. I only found my way here a short while ago, and haven't had time to delve deeply into the archives, but what little I have read has helped me more clearly understand a number of things.

does my heart good to hear, my friend. good to see ya roun' tha joint.

Oh and I forgot to say Conrad Black was the owner of The Telegraph, forgive the blog pimpage but-

http://tenpercent.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/naomi-klein-brings-the-funny/

he's a silly man.
Bring on that writing about the Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe, amongst the many things I come here for is to learn.

Thanks RickB for the link, I heard about this case, I just didn't know they where one and the same.