Chertoff concerned about ‘clean skin’ terrorists

April 4, 2007

I try not to be overly sensitive about these issues, but these comments struck me as immediately problematic.

The United States fears that the next September 11-style attack on America could be launched by Muslims from Britain or Europe who feel “second-class citizens” and alienated by a “colonial legacy”, according to the US Homeland Security chief.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Michael Chertoff, who arrives in Britain tomorrow for talks with John Reid, the Home Secretary, said the US was determined to build extra defences against so-called “clean skin” terrorists from Europe. (emphasis added)

Now, Chertoff went on to try and explain what “clean skin” terrorists are — he described them as those “whose documents are completely legitimate.”

But the phrase doesn’t refer to documents or proof of citizenship; it refers specifically to “skin.”

In January, Joe Biden caused quite a stir when he referred to Barack Obama as the first “clean” mainstream African-American presidential candidate. In retrospect, the coverage was probably a little excessive.

But with that in mind, hearing the Secretary of Homeland Security expressing concerns about “clean skin” terrorists from Europe is hardly reassuring. Maybe it’s a term of art in security and immigration circles, but they couldn’t come up with a less racially-charged phrase?

The IRA used to call such persons “lily-whites”. Is that any better?

  • These morons are still dumb as a damn rock. Guess who in America agrees with the radical Islamist critique of western society, wants to foment destruction because they believe they will profit by it, speak English like a native and look just like the people who are supposed to be defending the country?

    Score yourself 100 points if you said “the people who agree with Tim McVeigh.” Yet, almost all FBI counter-terrorism work on our domestic terrorists has been withdrawn, these sluggos are crawling around under their rocks with no one looking, and our security goes looking for “European” Muslims.

    It just so happens that almost all knowledgeable field operatives in counter-terrorism believe the domestic terrorists are the ones to watch for. I guess the fact they’re all Bush voters probably protects them. You’ll sure never see Jack Bauer hunt them down on “24” since they’re probably a significant part of the fan base.

    It’s almost like we’re going to freaking deserve the next hit. May it please be on Washington, so the guilty parties are the ones who pay.

  • Chertoff is a political hacker, just like every other Bush appointee. Up really is down:

    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.”

    Of course that is pure bullshit, and he is well aware of the reality of the situation:

    An authoritative US intelligence report pooling the views of 16 government agencies concludes America’s campaign in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1880275,00.html

    We are training the terrorists, and giving them more reasons to attack us. If they cared about terrorism they would let Sibel Edmonds tell her tale.
    http://www.justacitizen.com/

  • but they couldn’t come up with a less racially-charged phrase?

    Ha! Remember what Mark Fuhrman said in this video? Who do you think we’re dealing with? These phrases are just ‘trickling up’ from the law enforcement officers who disproportionately have that point of view.

  • Chertoff, like other right-wing Jews, doesn’t realize that all these conservative white gentiles he wants to be like are against him. He thinks he’s one of the boys by using a term like that.

  • I think this “Clean-Skin” terrorist comment will end up being quite a “tar baby” for Chertoff. The liberal left will no doubt “Gyp” Chertoff of his chance to explain himself. After-all this is reality. It would be one thing if the terrorists were all “wetbacks” or “chinks” but when they are liberalislamofacists who look like good “Christians” we need to call a “spade a spade”!

  • But, he’s clearly talking about individuals of the same ethnicity or race as the Islamic terrorists responsible for previous acts of terrorism… so, how is this a “racially-charged” comment?

  • Simply put: Michael Chertoff should explain himself and trying to coin a better phrase. How about non-stereotype or stealth profile?

  • Tom, I think you’ll find that a good many of those ” Tim McVeigh sluggos” you referred to in post 2 are now gainfully employed by (and wearing the uniform of ) Blackwater.

  • Ha! Could this “skin’ be parchment?
    The skin of animals that early man used to document their world?

    I thought of Biden too when Attaturk pointed folks over to this blog post.

  • I didn’t realize pimples, facial blemishes, and ezcema are used in identifying terror suspects.

    Maybe law enforcement agencies should watch for any unusual increase in the sale of acne medications.

  • James, you raise a good point but the issue really is that the language is still transparently racist, even when “clean-skin” refers to people of the same ethnicity. If someone’s not clean-skin, what are they? Dirty-skin?

    The use of “skin” to categorize is also just imprecise if it’s supposed to refer to the degree of cover a potential terrorist might have. Jargon, especially something like this, has a way of ending up used in mainstream journalism and a word like clean-skin is ultimately polarizing and counter-productive because it really does seem to confirm that skin color is the criteria used to judge a threat.

    And as Steve says, we may have more to fear in terms of domestic terror from the Blackwater Republicans than we do from foreign terrorists if Democrats sweep in ’08. That organization gets scarier and scarier with the new huge base they’re trying to open up in CA.

  • I think people already have lingo for this- a paper trail that’s not a problem, having one’s papers all in order, etc.

    So one has to ask, why did someone come with a phrase like clean skin? Why did people keep using it- did they have sympathy for the way it sounds? Did the person who thought up the phrase not know that the suspects from Europe were not white converts, and just assumed? And then the people who use the phrase were just assholes enough never to change it?

  • Actually, “clean skin” is intelligence jargon. It refers to legitimate documents obtained for use in a legend (cover) rather than more easily spotted forged or stolen documents. The “skin” is the paper – the document or documentation itself. For instance, an undercover agent might apply for a legitimate driver’s license or a passport, either under his own name or using a phony birth certificate. His “dirty skin” – the phony – has now been replaced by a “clean skin” – a genuine passport.

    Where a bonehead like Chertoff heard it, I can’t tell you, but I suppose as head of HS he has to deal with spooks of various descriptions all the time. Must have picked it up from one of them.

    Mickey may well be a racist – the Bush Admin is full of them – but you can’t prove it by this.

  • Thanks, Mick, that’s good to know. In that case, probably better to file it under “spy biz jargon political officials should be smart enough not to use in press conferences.”

  • This is a tempest in a teacup when you have Mick’s factual background information. Some things just aren’t worth getting worked up, and a public official’s use of a commonly-used intelligence term (commonly used in the intelligence community, anyway) is one of those things.

    It reminds me of when a government official – can’t remember who – had to resign because he had used, in proper context and with absolutely no ill intent, the word “niggardly.” Apparently it just sounded too much like the well-known racist word, even though it means something completely different. It’s one thing to get angry about racism, and quite another to get angry about things that look like racism but just aren’t.

  • In fact, “clean-skin” is easily looked up on Wikipedia and its first definition is someone whose identity is unknown to law enforcement.

  • Now I understand why my 74-year-old mother was given a hard time by an immigration official when she came to visit me from Belgium last fall.

    She is indeed “clean-skinned” and has documents that are completely legitimate .

    Thanks to Michael Chertoff for clearing this up for me.

  • It reminds me of when a government official – can’t remember who – had to resign because he had used, in proper context and with absolutely no ill intent, the word “niggardly.” Apparently it just sounded too much like the well-known racist word, even though it means something completely different. It’s one thing to get angry about racism, and quite another to get angry about things that look like racism but just aren’t.

    That’s an antiquated word, and isn’t its origin a slur? Doesn’t it come from nigger?

    So few people use ‘niggardly’ now, that if someone does use it, it’s pretty insensitive. There are better words to use- junky, etc. If someone uses the word ‘niggardly’ it’s a fair assumption that they are purposely tying to make people uncomfortable or to think of things. It’s not airtight, but it’s a fair assumption.

  • It’s taken me a while to figure out exactly why I found this so disurbing at first reading.

    At first I though he was going to Britain to speak with the shoebomber about this, but that’s Richard Reid, not John Reid.

    Then I realized it was this statement that the next attack on America “could be launched by Muslims from Britain or Europe who feel ‘second-class citizens’ and alienated by a ‘colonial legacy.'” This “war” we are fighting has now devolved from a conflict with a loose, but organized, group of Islamic fundamentalist radicals who could be identified by their affiliation to al Qaeda to now feeling we are in a broader “war on terror” with anyone in the world with an ax to grind. My worry is that this is the paranoid way the Bushies are pursuing their “anti-terror” plans. Why do we need to secretly spy on American citizens without warrant? Because you never know who may feel like a second class citizen and want to do some crazy act. Any Muslim, and possibly even suspected “Muslim sympathizers” who could be anyone not sufficiently “pro war on terror,” are now being viewed as potentially the next Osama.

    This sounds like Nixon’s infamous “enemies list” on steroids. How much extra spying on all of us will it take to determine who among us is “clean skinned’ and who is not?

  • Hey Tom Cleaver, my family and I live in DC. If we get hit it will have nothing to do with us not protecting this city. Save your assinine and irresponsible comments for somewhere else and politely go F yourself.

  • That’s an antiquated word, and isn’t its origin a slur? Doesn’t it come from nigger?

    No, Swan, it isn’t, and it doesn’t. It’s simply the ignorance and paranoia of persons who make such assumptions that tend to drive such perfectly harmless and useful words from the lexicon, and which drove David Howard from his position in the D.C. mayor’s office. I see nothing “insensitive” about using an innocent word because it might offend those who lack an adequate grasp of the English language.

  • That’s an antiquated word, and isn’t its origin a slur? Doesn’t it come from nigger? — Swan, @21

    Nope; “niggard” (and “niggardly”) share the root with the word “niggle” and all are of Scandinavian (probably Norwegian) origin. “Niggardly” is synonymous with “cheese-paring” (in vernacular), “parsimonious”, “scant” etc — not “junky”. It has a negative connotation but it has nothing to do with “nigger”, which has always been a *racial* slur.

    I think the difference between using “clear skin” and being misunderstood and using “niggardly” and being misunderstood is that “niggardly” is in every English dictionary and easy to check — there’s little excuse for not knowing it (English is my second language, and all I had to check was the origin, not the meaning of it). “Clear skin”, OTOH, is sort of “hermetic idiom” — known only by people in a particular — and small — section of a society. So, when it escapes into a larger arena it’s startling. And easy to misinterpret.

  • Its a term used in Israel by the Mossad………..

    Also by Interpol, MI6, the CIA, the Surete, and others. It’s fairly common in the intelligence community.

  • Tom Cleaver – It’s almost like we’re going to freaking deserve the next hit. May it please be on Washington, so the guilty parties are the ones who pay.

    johnny d – Hey Tom Cleaver, my family and I live in DC. If we get hit it will have nothing to do with us not protecting this city. Save your assinine and irresponsible comments for somewhere else and politely go F yourself.

    Indignation Addiction

  • muslims should feel like second or better yet third class citizens of any country. This includes that wanna be black dude from Il. You know obama thing. I don’t actually like the CLintons either, but I feel that they are the only Democrats who can lead from the front and not behind some ficticious child molesting religion called islam or muslim or what ever these dirty people call themselves. I believe in the only real God Who Performs real miracles JESUS! To have this terrorist even move forward is such a shame for the USA. I have friends who like this terrorist just because he is Black, but then after telling them the truth about this thing and his religion(s) and what he really is, they changed their minds. The rest of the US needs to really look at this dude. Yeah the White people did wrong long ago against African Americans, but what is this terrorist becomes a leader in the US? Then, just like islam says or should I say that the molester mohammad says, kill all who don’t believe in terrorism?????? You decide. Please God, encourage a real American to run for President. Ret. Gen. Powell or Rev. Jackson. THese two are real, and you can trust them. a muslim cannot be trusted for anything other than terrorism. They screw this up as well.

    • Comments are closed.