As far as I know, the article is correct, but it seems to leave out a fact or two. I don’t blame the Justice Dept. Gosh, not everybody can use Google to access the Washington Post Archives:
Elhassan, a citizen of Sudan with a U.S. green card, was charged this month with aiding and abetting what authorities said was a plot to have an acquaintance join the Islamic State. That person, 28-year-old Joseph Hassan Farrokh, intended to fly to Syria, and Elhassan was aware of his plans and drove him to Richmond for the first leg of his journey, authorities have alleged.
This ‘Virginia man” actually is a citizen of Sudan. But I’m sure this is just a quibble.
If you get your news from the headlines, you can be excused for thinking that “Minnesota men” pose a special risk of taking up the terrorist jihad at home and abroad. As the Wall Street Journal reported this past April, for example, “U.S. charges six Minnesota men with trying to join ISIS.” The “Minnesota men” featured in such headlines are almost invariably drawn from Minnesota’s swelling population of Somali Muslim immigrants.
Lots of blogs note when the news reporters forget the political party of an indicted politician. I think there should be a standard policy: Mention the party in the first paragraph.
In this case, is it asking too much to find some policy which could identify an individual’s country of origin, if they are charged with terrorism? Especially if we are instead led to believe by the headline that the guy is a ‘Virginia man’?
I don’t expect anyone to make such a distinction for American born men or women with parents from another country. I do think it matters to those who right now are figuring out if Somali men should be offered refuge here.