Organizer's Past Raises Questions About Madrid Interfaith Conference
In an ironic twist, an international interfaith conference set to start Wednesday in Madrid was organized by a man accused of working with a senior Al Qaeda financier and who unabashedly supports Palestinian suicide bombings.
Abdullah al-Turki is organizing the conference on behalf of the Muslim World League (MWL), where he is secretary general. The MWL was created by the Saudi royal family in 1962 to "promote Islamic unity" and spread Wahhabi doctrine. Wahhabism is an austere form of Islam that seeks to realize the faith as it was practiced by Muhammad and his Companions, barren of the innovations and traditions that arose in the centuries since.
The conference is expected to attract more than 100 people from more than 50 countries. But it is a previous Madrid venture by al-Turki that raises questions about the conference. In 1999, al-Turki was a partner in a Madrid construction project with a senior Al Qaeda financier, a pending lawsuit claims. Profits from that deal were routed to Al Qaeda cells, according to allegations in WTC Properties v. Al Baraka et. al.
The lawsuit argues that, without the financial support from the banks, charities and other entities targeted, the 9/11 attacks may not have taken place. Similar allegations were made in at least three other lawsuits. In court papers, Al Turki has disputed the lawsuit's allegations and has argued that none of his actions were intended to support terrorist activities.
Organizers of this week's gathering say it is expected to attract dozens of American-based Muslims, including Sayyed Syeed and Ingrid Mattson from the Islamic Society of North America, Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, as well as six U.S. rabbis, including Marc Schneier of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and Steven Jacobs of Los Angeles. In addition, John Esposito, director of Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding is among a few American academics invited to attend.
Saudi King Abdullah will open the conference, the Agence France Press news service reported Monday. The audience will include World Jewish Congress Secretary General Michael Schneider and Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican's point man on dialogue with Muslims.
Al-Turki said the conference will avoid contentious issues and instead serve as an opportunity "to get to know each other and to look for ways to cooperate."
At another conference organized by al-Turki in 2002, the assembled scholars of the Islamic Fiqh Academy of the MWL "stated that terrorism is not equal to Jihad," the lawsuit says. The scholars "defined a right to struggle ‘against occupiers … and those who renege on their commitments or prevent Muslims from peacefully preaching.'"
In the week following the 9/11 attacks, al-Turki told a radio interviewer that U.S. policy was responsible for the attacks.
"The attacks are a result of injustice which is carried out in the world, particularly the world which is led by the USA. They are greatly responsible for the injustice which exists in the world today," al-Turki said. He then blamed Israel, which he called "the mother of terrorism. To be able to solve the problem of terrorism in the world, it is necessary first of all to resolve the Palestinian question."
Later that year, during a news conference at the National Press Club videotaped by the Investigative Project, al-Turki was asked about Palestinian suicide bombings:
We can also reverse the question by asking the questioner: "What do you think of the, um, Israeli oppression against the Palestinian people?" Could that be called terrorism as well? Is it coming from - is it based on
religion? This is a question. In regards to the operation, we shall state that first of all, Islam is against the killing of innocent people, civilians, and non-warring people. Those who are involved in so-called 'operation' in fact were put in a very dark (unintelligible word). They have no way-no other alternative. What could be the alternative for them? They came into a state of oppression, and no hope. It's a hopeless case for them. And because there is a strong and organized terrorism being waged against them, so they have no other choice except to do what they do and we shall not look at the issue from only a religious perspective, but rather we shall look at it as a matter of aggression being forced on them, and they had no other choice except that.
Bob Blitzer, who served as the FBI's domestic terrorism chief in the 1990s, said he was troubled by a conference purported to be about interfaith dialogue being organized by a group charged with spreading Wahhabism. It's more troubling, he said, when the principal organizer is alleged in court papers to have ties to Al Qaeda.
"I'm not sure why in the world they would put someone in a responsible position in that type of forum," Blitzer said. "It sends the wrong message. People of faith are seeking rapprochement with the Muslim world. Most, or all, of these folks are going there for the right reasons. If he's the face of this, what does that say?"
Once they learn about al-Turki's alleged ties to Al Qaeda and his previous statements, Americans planning on attending the conference "should walk away and ask the king about this," Blitzer said.
That sentiment was echoed by U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), who founded the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus.
"I am very supportive of interfaith dialogue and believe we need to encourage all religions to work together for peace and for the good of mankind," Myrick said. "I am encouraged by King Abdullah's initiative to promote interfaith understanding. However, I fail to understand how the goals of this conference can be achieved when the man running this summit is a suspected financier of terrorism and has made statements in the past saying that only Islam could dominate the Arabian Peninsula. Call me old fashion, but actions always speak louder than words."
In WTC Properties v. Al Baraka, et. al. al-Turki is described as having "acted as Saudi Minister of Islamic Affairs for many years and clearly was in a position where he should have known about the reach of international terrorism and al Qaeda." He became a shareholder in a business that "bought real estate but did no actual construction work, although [it] list[ed] itself as a construction company. Instead, that company made direct payments to al Qaeda cells," according to the lawsuit.
Al-Turki's partner was Muhammed Galeb Kalaje Zouaydi, described in the litigation as "a high level al Qaeda financier" and a brother in law of Osama bin Laden. Spanish authorities arrested Zouaydi in 2002 for financing al Qaeda operations in Europe, the lawsuit says:
"Zouaydi was part of an international terrorist movement for global jihad which encompassed the al Qaeda network. This network channeled money directly to the perpetrators of September 11, 2001, and to similar global jihad movements planning terrorist actions in San Francisco, Bali, and elsewhere."
In the Madrid business deal, Zouaydi and al-Turki each were supposed to contribute half the money. But al-Turki stood to receive 70 percent of the profits, the WTC Properties lawsuit said.
"The Spanish scheme provided material support directly to al Qaeda operatives and the September 11, 2001 attacks. As investigations continue, additional evidence of such schemes will be uncovered," the WTC Properties lawsuit said.
Attorneys for al-Turki sought to have him dismissed from the litigation in September 2005. His inclusion is based "evidently on no basis other than that he is a Muslim who has held important governmental positions relating to Islamic affairs," his attorneys argued. They also argue that he never entered the business deal with Zouaydi despite numerous overtures from Zouaydi.
And they cite the 9/11 Commission Report, which found Zouaydi may have given money to an Al Qaeda associate in Hamburg but "no evidence that Zouaydi provided money to the plot participants or that any of his funds were used to support the plot." The High Court of Spain also acquitted Zouaydi of involvement in the September 11 attacks, according to al-Turki's lawyers.
Twelve defendants were dismissed from the WTC Properties lawsuit in January 2006 but al-Turki was not among them, court records show. His motion to dismiss is still pending.
Among those invited are Bob Edgar, former general secretary of the National Council of Churches, Rabbi Michael Paley of the UJA Federation in New York, and Rabbi David Rosen, chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligiou Consultations. Rosen told the Christian Science Monitor in an e-mail that he saw the conference as a chance to "break down ... stereotypes, suspicion, and bigotry." He added that he would have liked to see Israeli officials invited, too.
Click here for a list of invitees, but note that not all those listed will attend. Former Vice President Al Gore, canceled his appearance citing a scheduling conflict.
By Steven Emerson | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 at 2:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
A Pact With the Devil
As Qassam rockets fired from Gaza landed in the Southern Israeli town Sderot on Wednesday morning, and again on Thursday, Hamas terrorists proved once again what everyone should already know – their word is meaningless. Well, Hamas' word on matters of peace, anyway. One need not look any further than Hamas' charter, which calls for Islam to "obliterate" Israel, to understand why.
And yet despite that foreknowledge, and despite a considerable degree of public skepticism, the Olmert government opted to "give peace a chance" with Hamas, entering into a truce with the terrorist organization bent on Israel's destruction, on Thursday, June 19. Five days later, the rockets were flying from Gaza. The Islamic Jihad terrorist group claimed credit for sending a volley of missiles, and afterwards, Hamas issued a statement saying that it will not "police" the truce with Israel.
As a reminder, Hamas pledged that, should Israel agree to the truce after much pleading from the terrorist group, the State Department and the "international community," that:
- All Gaza-Israel violence stops (emphasis added)
And now, rather conveniently and unsurprisingly, Hamas is basically saying "you didn't really expect us to mean ‘all' violence, did you?" And this, aside from the rocket fire, is the latest in a series of reminders that there is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, from entering into a pact with the devil.
According to the Associated Press:
"Even if there is a violation by some factions, Hamas emphasizes its commitment to the calm and is working to implement the calm," (Hamas leader Khalil) al-Haya said.
"But Hamas is not going to be a police securing the border of the occupation," he added. "No one will enjoy a happy moment seeing Hamas holding a rifle in the face of a resistance fighter."
So there's your truce for you. Hamas says it won't launch rockets at Israeli neighborhoods, but it won't stop others from doing so. First, Palestinian Islamic Jihad struck. On Thursday, it was the Fatah-aligned al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Given this attitude, it's no surprise Israel is considering a military response.
Remember, Hamas is the government in Gaza, responsible for what goes on inside and what blasts are sent from it. In order to secure the truce, Hamas didn't pledge merely a "commitment to calm," they pledged to stop all violence from Gaza. Forget the political considerations of being either "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" for a moment, and ask why Israel should enter into an agreement with an organization that states it has no intention to honor what it agreed to just days before.
Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh has also announced that Hamas would continue to its smuggling operations along the Egypt-Gaza border, which again, should surprise no one, since clearly Hamas only wanted the "commitment to calm" in the first place in order to resupply and rebuild its infrastructure. Hamas is not at all interested in peace, and never has been – a lesson that Israelis have learned time and time again.
And whether or not Israel should enter into an agreement with Hamas at all is a separate question from why Israel chose to enter into this agreement with Hamas.
If Israel had received any concrete gains from entering into the truce, such as the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, that may have been reason enough to deal with Hamas. But all Israel gained on that front was a "promise" to enter into negotiations for what would only be another in a long series of hugely unbalanced "prisoner swaps," in which Israel would be expected to release dozens of Hamas operatives in exchange for Shalit, and at what price?
The latest "truce" is eerily reminiscent of past agreements the Israelis entered into with the late-Yasser Arafat, under correspondingly large levels of international pressure. The Israelis were given assurances that, should Arafat and the Palestinian Authority violate the terms of the agreement, the Israelis could remove Arafat. Of course, the Israelis could never actually remove Arafat from office, despite his copious violations of the "peace" agreements, because of the inevitable outcry from the "international community" that angled for the agreements in the first place.
Unsurprisingly, despite having pushed for Israel to enter into a truce with Hamas, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had nothing to say about Hamas' violations of the truce, speaking Tuesday in Berlin at a conference rather ironically designed for "Support of Palestinian Civil Security and Rule of Law," but instead, had plenty to say about Israel's construction plans in its own capital city of Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, not only is Hamas failing to live up to its commitments in Gaza, it is still vigorously targeting Israeli civilians elsewhere. Buried in a Reuters article on the post-truce rocket barrage from Gaza, we learn that Hamas has "claimed responsibility for a shooting attack that wounded three Israeli hikers."
So as Hamas is taking target practice at hikers in the West Bank, and blatantly violating the "truce" it secured in Gaza, perhaps the Israeli government will come to its senses, and reconsider its decision to enter into a deal with the devil.
By Steven Emerson | Thu, 26 Jun 2008 at 4:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Kristof: Never Mind the Terrorists
In his June 19th piece titled, "Strengthening Extremists," New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof lambastes the American and Israeli policy of isolating the terror group Hamas, alleging that Hamas' international isolation and resulting pressure have only managed to empower the so-called Islamic Resistance Movement.
And to "prove" his point, Kristof interviews two Gazans who, unsurprisingly, hate Israel. In Kristof's world, the siege of Gaza has only made Hamas more popular. Never mind that Hamas won the Palestinian elections before the siege began and after the Israelis had unilaterally withdrawn from Gaza. A withdrawal, by the way, which Hamas seized upon as a "victory" which, in turn, made Hamas more popular – enough to defeat rival Fatah in the elections.
So the Israelis give the Palestinians land for nothing in return, and Hamas gains popularity. According to Kristof, the Israelis isolate and attack Hamas in Gaza, and Hamas gains popularity. So when does Hamas lose popularity? Kristof claims that the recently minted "truce" between Hamas and Israel will somehow do the trick. Again, never mind Hamas' history of breaking such truces. Even the deferential Reuters news service said of the arrangement, "Israel-Hamas truce begins but duration in doubt."
(*Updated: Sure enough, rocket fire into Southern Israel Tuesday morning violated the cease fire less than a week after it started.)
Kristof, of course, doesn't explain how even temporarily ending the siege on Gaza and allowing Hamas to take credit for better conditions in the territory will somehow lessen the group's credibility. But again, never mind that.
People should remember that Kristof has already rather famously embarrassed himself when it comes to his knowledge of Palestinian terrorists. In March 2002, Kristof wrote a column titled, "Putting Us to the Test," in which he vigorously defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative Sami Al-Arian. Infamously portraying the terrorist leader as a "rumpled academic," Kristof described Al-Arian as someone who "denounces terrorism, promotes inter-faith services with Jews and Christians, and led students at his Islamic school to a memorial service after 9/11 where they all sang 'God Bless America.'" Never mind that Al-Arian has said that Allah has turned the Jews into monkeys and pigs, or that he wrote a letter in February 1995 soliciting funds for terrorist attacks. He wrote:
... I would like to discuss with you a very important matter concerning the future of work in Palestine and the ability of the Islamic movement to confront the great challenges before it. In short, you are well aware that this movement, represented by its branches, Hamas and the Jihad, is being threatened by the enemy, the neighboring regimes, and even worldwide. Preserving the spirit and flame of jihad against the enemy is a general Islamic responsibility and cannot be left to rest upon the shoulders of the few among our nation. Nevertheless, these few shoulder the responsibility of the nation's honor, even putting their souls in their hands to prove that Islam is capable of responding to oppression, aggression, and desecration of the sacred places and Muslims' dignity.
The latest operation, carried out by the two mujahideen who were martyred for the sake of God, is the best guide and witness to what the believing few can do in the face of Arab and Islamic collapse at the heels of the Zionist enemy and in keeping the flame of faith, steadfastness, and defiance glowing.
…
The movement's financial situation is very difficult, and it cannot fulfill its responsibilities towards the martyrs and prisoners.
…
I call upon you to try to extend true support of the jihad effort in Palestine so that operations such as these can continue, so that people do not lose faith in Islam and its representatives, and so that we can prove to the people and to history that Islam properly responded to the circumstances despite a difficult stage in time, and a terrible era.
In an interview on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, also in March 2002, Kristof vociferously denied that the letter was an attempt to raise funds for terrorist attacks and described it benignly as nothing more than a "private communication with a Kuwaiti, that it was not … it did not violate any federal law or any state law." So again, never mind that he was asking for money for terrorist attacks, or "operations," could continue. It was just a "private communication," says Kristof, so never mind.
Kristof went on to describe the scholarly nature of organizations run by Al-Arian. Never mind that one of those organizations, the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), was headed by Ramadan Abdullah Shallah – currently the Secretary General of the PIJ – and described as a "most wanted terrorist" by the U.S. government. When Shallah left WISE to become the commander of PIJ, Al-Arian lied – to both the media and his employers - about knowing who Shallah was, and his organization issued a press release stating that Shallah:
"…left WISE for a research tour of the Middle East in order to write a book on Islamic banking, as well as to tend to his sick father who later passed away."
The statement went on to say that WISE "denies any knowledge" of Shallah's "association or affiliation with any political group or agency in the Middle East." During closing arguments in Al-Arian's trial, his own defense attorney admitted he lied repeatedly, and, in fact, was a PIJ member, as reported by the St. Petersburg Times:
Yes, said [Al-Arian's defense attorney] Moffitt, Al-Arian was affiliated with the cultural, charitable arm of the PIJ, and he lied to the media about it because he was afraid WISE would be shut down.
And never mind that Al-Arian's other organization, the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP) was described – on video - by its top fundraiser as "the active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine" and only called ICP for "security reasons." And never mind that the ICP held conferences to raise money for the PIJ and praise the killing of Jews. At one such event in Cleveland:
Fawaz Damra:…person can come forward and donate. We are offering the opportunity. Anyone who has the wish can come forward and donate. We put then on the floor, God willing. Would anyone like to donate for the Intifada? For Islamic Jihad, I say it frankly: for Islamic Jihad.
This Jihad, which is still blazing in Palestine, from village to village. I am telling you: not for the organizations or anything else, with due respect for everyone. But only for Jihad.
One of them goes out of his house with a knife to stab the Jews. Twelve Jews, after the Gulf events. O brothers, the Intifada is calling upon you. $500.00. Who is going to top the $500.00? Who is going to top the $500.00 for this medal?
And whoever wants to write a check, he can write it in the name if the Islamic Committee for Palestine, "ICP" for short. ICP, whoever likes to write a check. Is anyone going to top the $500.00 Haj Ahmad?
But since that conference happened in 1991, and, as Kristof helpfully tells us, Al-Arian's own vile comments on video "were about a dozen years old, after all" – you know, never mind. Nothing more than a "rumpled academic," indeed. Al-Arian eventually pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to the PIJ. But according to Kristof's flawed logic, pointing out Al-Arian's ties to terrorism, arresting and prosecuting him, would likely only strengthen the extremists. Better to have him still at the University, running a think tank which sheltered leaders of a violent, religiously motivated eliminationist terrorist group.
Never mind that during Al-Arian's sentencing, the judge stated of Al-Arian:
You are a master manipulator. You looked your neighbors in the eyes and said you had nothing to do with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This trial exposed that as a lie.
The judge continued:
And yet, still in the face of your own words, you continue to lie to your friends and supporters, claiming to abhor violence and to seek only aid for widows and orphans. Your only connection to widows and orphans is that you create them, even among the Palestinians; and you create them, not by sending your children to blow themselves out of existence. No. You exhort others to send their children.
On that, Kristof was strangely silent.
But back to Hamas and Gaza. Kristof claims that the American and Israeli policy of targeting the terrorist group in Gaza is "morally bankrupt — a case of collective punishment." Better to deal and negotiate with Hamas – an organization everyone should remember is sworn to Israel's destruction. The Hamas charter states, amongst other things:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
But Kristof wants Israel to be nice to Hamas anyway. However, Kristof is hardly consistent when it comes to being against "collective punishment." In fact, to his credit, he has been one of the leading proponents calling for sanctions against the Khartoum regime (even though he admits that "Sudanese authorities may not have the money to feed their people") because of the atrocities committed in Darfur. But I guess it wouldn't be considered "collective punishment," in Kristof's mind, if any Sudanese civilians suffer from such sanctions and isolation of Islamist Sudanese government, as they most certainly would. It is tough to know where Kristof's selectivity (a less charitable description would be hypocrisy) on the matter originates, but his deferential treatment towards Sami Al-Arian might be one indicator. Indeed, Kristof has a documented history of blaming Israel and letting Islamic terrorists off the hook.
Writing on another issue which has received media attention, Kristof laments:
Israel's decision to block Gazans from studying abroad was particularly shortsighted. Educating Gazans might help build a contingent of moderates, but Israel has continued to block three Fulbright scholars from leaving for the U.S.
Kristof fails to mention that Israel has allowed four Gazans to leave and that the reason the three other Gazans have not been cleared to leave the Strip is that they have ties to Hamas, notably Hamas' main educational institution, the Islamic University of Gaza. From the June 20th edition of the New York Sun:
The Islamic University of Gaza is intertwined with Hamas. In his letter, (Illinois Congressman Mark) Kirk quotes Jameela El Shanty, a professor at the school who told the Baltimore Sun in 2006: "Hamas built this institution. The university presents the philosophy of Hamas. If you want to know what Hamas is, you can know it from the university."
Naturally, Kristof thinks that having ties to Hamas should yield no negative consequences whatsoever. Kristof ends his article stating, "Let's stop bolstering Hamas." This from a man who wants to give Hamas-linked individuals free educations at prestigious American universities, because to not do so would be "counterproductive" and "collective punishment." Kristof was wrong about Al-Arian, and he's wrong about Hamas. Sadly, he fits right in at the New York Times.
By Steven Emerson | Tue, 24 Jun 2008 at 2:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Fairfax Cop Who Tipped Terror Suspect Helped Kill Training Program
A Fairfax County Police sergeant who admits tipping off a terrorism suspect that he was under FBI surveillance also helped kill what had been a successful intelligence and terrorism-related training program within his police department.
Sgt. Weiss Rasool was sentenced to two years probation on April 22 after pleading guilty to illegally accessing a police database to run license tag numbers for a friend who thought he was being followed. Those tags traced back to FBI agents who had Rasool's acquaintance under surveillance as part of a terrorism investigation.
The Washington Post reported that Rasool cried during his sentencing and apologized for what he called "errors of judgment. But I never intended to put anybody's life at risk." The Post further reported:
"The target was arrested in November 2005, then convicted and deported, according to court filings in Rasool's case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeanine Linehan said that the target and his family were already dressed and destroying evidence at 6 a.m. when agents arrived to make the arrest, indicating that they had been tipped off."
Now the president of an Arlington, Va.-based counterterrorism research center is asking Rasool's bosses to reconsider their 2006 decision to cease using training programs offered by the center. Complaints by Rasool and an officer from another local agency that the training was anti-Islam prompted Fairfax County police to break with the Higgins Center for Counter Terrorism Research.
In a letter to Police Chief David Rohrer written two days after Rasool's sentencing, Higgins Center President Peter Leitner said Rasool's complaints were unfounded and harmed his company's reputation:
"We were deeply disturbed and offended that the leadership of your Department sided with Rasool and essentially blackballed our non-Profit (sic) organization from teaching within your Academy. Several scheduled classes were cancelled and we were never invited back…
We were dismissed without recourse, suffered financial and professional reputation losses, and the resulting pressures caused serious damage to our ability to function properly. All on the basis of spurious charges made by someone who later proved to be unreliable -- at best."
Leitner said he has received no response to his letter.
"This is precisely why Fairfax PD needs our training," Leitner told the Investigative Project on Terrorism in an e-mail. "They need to learn about 5th column activities and penetrating agents. It also shows how ignorance and/or political correctness at the local level can jeopardize national security interests and assets."
Though he pled guilty, prosecutors still complained that Rasool was not playing straight with them. They originally argued that Rasool deserved a sentenced at the low end of the federal guidelines. That changed after a defense sentencing motion cast his actions as a simple administrative oversight, and that had he submitted a relevant form, "it is possible the case would not be before the Court today." Prosecutors then argued Rasool was not taking responsibility for his actions, saying he even claimed not to remember tapping in to the federal database and that he initially denied knowing the suspect or calling him. He confessed only after hearing a recording of the call.
"[A]s I told you, I can only tell you if it comes back to a person or not a person and all three vehicles do not come back to an individual person, so I just wanted to give you that much, uhh ok. Hope things work out for you," Rasool said in a voice mail message to his friend that was intercepted by federal investigators.
Rasool's attorney argued he was responding normally to a citizen's concern that he was being followed. "Rather," prosecutors responded, "the evidence is that the defendant was advising the target that he was being following by government vehicles."
In their sentencing memo to the court, prosecutors made clear the severity of Rasool's breach:
"The defendant, through his experience with the police, had a basis to believe that the leasing company was used for federal law enforcement vehicles, but despite that, relayed the information to the individual. The defendant also checked his name and other names multiple times in NCIC without a legitimate law enforcement purpose to do so and to see if he or others he was acquainted with were listed on the Terrorist Watch List.
The defendant's actions damaged the integrity of the NCIC system and jeopardized at least one federal investigation. The defendant's actions could have placed federal agents in danger. The FBI has had to undo the harm caused by the defendant."
The Higgins Center had offered courses for years without any complaint, yet in June of 2006, that all changed. In a letter dated June 26, 2006 to Academy Director Major Tyrone Morrow, Higgins Vice President Brian Fairchild indicated six officers in total lodged complaints against his programs. But the complaints did not reflect the program's actual content, Fairchild said, noting that statements used to illustrate Islamist ideology come from the Islamists themselves. In addition, instructors repeatedly make clear that the Islamists expressing radical ideology do not reflect the general Muslim world:
"It appears that these officers misunderstood and/or are confused by the content of our courses which is solely to educate officers about Islamist terrorists and the international revolutionary Islamist movement that creates and supports them. We are surprised by the assertions in these complaints, because, in order to ensure that such misunderstandings do not occur, we clearly define our terms in lecture supported by PowerPoint slides.
In our seminars, we never criticize traditional Islam or Muslims. Quite to the contrary, we definitively and repeatedly state that the overwhelming majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide are fine people that have nothing to do with extremism or terrorism." (emphasis in original)
In one complaint, Fairchild noted, the officer praised Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, who founded the Pakistani Islamic group Jamaat e-Islami in 1941. Maududi, Fairchild wrote, considered non-Islamic governments to be evil and sanctioned their violent overthrow.
"One of Maududi's direct quotes concisely describes his views:
- ‘Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.'" (emphasis in original)
Rasool was under federal investigation at the time. In addition to running the license tag numbers, he admitted improperly accessing the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database 15 times in 2005-06, checking for his own name and the names of acquaintances. "The defendant did this in an attempt to determine if he or others were registered with the Violent Crime and Terrorist Offender File, which is a category of records maintained within the NCIC system," the plea agreement states.
In an interview, Leitner expressed frustration with the way Fairfax police officials treated him and his company. He called the complaints "nebulous," and said he was never given a full opportunity to rebut them. "It was very star chamber like."
Another officer who joined Rasool in complaining about the Higgins program works for an area sheriff's department, Leitner said. That officer claimed to be a representative from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Leitner said.
In November 2006, Fairfax County Police Chief David Rohrer attended CAIR's 12th Annual Banquet at the Marriott hotel in Crystal City. He credited CAIR with "helping police departments to better understand the Muslim community," adding:
"As we go forward, let us choose to make a difference and embrace a vision of peace and unity and hope. And let us choose for us and our children hope over fear, caring over indifference, tolerance over intolerance, acceptance over prejudice, and understanding over ignorance."
Among those writing to the sentencing judge in support of Rasool was CAIR governmental affairs director Corey Saylor. "I have always found Sgt. Rasool eager to promote a substantive relationship between the Fairfax County Police Department and the local Muslim community. His efforts played a significant role in improving trust in a time when mutual misunderstanding could easily severe (sic) all positive ties between these two groups."
Another letter of support came from Tyrone Morrow, the training academy major to whom Fairchild wrote his letter of appeal in 2006. Morrow, now retired, told the court he used to supervise Rasool and found him "to be of sound character and reputation."
Despite his plea to a misdemeanor, Rasool remains a Fairfax County police sergeant although he is under an internal affairs investigation.
By Steven Emerson | Fri, 9 May 2008 at 2:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Investigative Project Releases Gov't Memos Curtailing Speech in War on Terror
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is refusing to identify the "influential Muslim Americans" and "leading U.S.-based scholars and commentators on Islam" who met with Secretary Michael Chertoff in helping shape a softer approach to government lexicon about terrorists and their ideological motivations.
"Our policy is we don't comment on the Secretary's private schedule," spokeswoman Amy Kudwa told the IPT. Nor would she identify any of the participants' organizational affiliation.
DHS and the State Department's Counterterrorism Communications Center each issued reports urging government employees to avoid words like "jihad," "mujahedeen" or any reference to Islam or Muslims, especially in relation to Al Qaeda. The Investigative Project on Terrorism is making the documents available for the first time here and here.
As we reported last week, the memos say a change in language from the U.S. government is needed to win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims and avoid glamorizing terrorists motivated by religious ideology. "Moderate" is also frowned upon in the memos, though, with "mainstream" or "traditional" suggested as replacements.
Among the recommendations not reported previously:
- "The experts we consulted debated the word ‘liberty,' but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony."
- "The fact is that Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible – in fact, they can make each other stronger. Senior officials should emphasize that fact."
- The USG [U.S. government] should draw the conflict lines not between Islam and the West, but between a dangerous, cult-like network of terrorists and everyone who is in support of global security and progress.
So America, after serving for more than two centuries the sanctuary for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, is being asked to minimize liberty against fanatics bent on a global religious state. The memo doesn't offer examples to show where Islam and secular democracy have reinforced each other, or explain how Shariah law, the imposition of religion into state affairs, is "fully compatible" with secular democracy.
It is no surprise, however, to see the changes praised by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC):
MPAC has long promoted a nuanced approach towards the lexicon of terrorism emanating from the United States government and media. It is essential that various elements of the government recognize the importance of decoupling Islam with terrorism. Furthermore, using Islamic language to describe terrorists falsely bolsters their religious credibility among the very people we most need -- the majority of mainstream Muslims around the world.
The memorandum described by the Associated Press reportedly also draws heavily on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that examined the way American Muslims reacted to different phrases used by U.S. officials to describe terrorists and recommended ways to improve the message. Through its regular government engagement with government agencies including DHS, MPAC has repeatedly addressed the importance of refraining from ideologically based language that mischaracterizes the Muslim community domestically and abroad.
The fact that the government agencies are implementing such recommendations in their communications is a victory for constructive engagement with the Muslim American community. Implementing the recommendations, as they are described in media reports, would serve as a powerful tool in isolating the terrorists.
In other writings, MPAC's more nuanced approach involves accepting, not isolating, terrorists. It repeatedly has lobbied to remove Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hizballah from the U.S. list of designated terrorist groups. Its 2003 counterterrorism policy critique says:
Arab states question Washington's list of designated pro-Palestinian groups and humanitarian organizations. It is clear that the current terrorist threat to the US emanates from Al-Qaeda and not Palestinian groups. There is no evidence that Palestinian groups designated as terrorist organizations have any connections to Al-Qaeda. Yet the preoccupation with these groups raises the question as to whether targeting Palestinian groups serves true national security interests or is based on political considerations.
Now, look at the bottom of page 2 on the DHS memo: "Hezbollah and Hamas are distinct in methods, motivations and goals from Al Qaeda," it says. "When possible, the experts recommend that USG terminology should make this clear.
If only it were true. Suicide attacks are staples of the methods of each group. The imposition of Islamic law, or Shariah, is a goal stated by each.
These organizations are responsible for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians – often by the preferred method of suicide bombing, not to mention their roles in derailing U.S. foreign policy and efforts to achieve peace. But MPAC, despite these obvious details, as well as the fact that the U.S. has designated terrorist groups in every corner of the earth [Philippines (Abu Sayyaf), Spain (the Basque group, ETA), Japan (Aum Shinrikyo), Sri Lanka (the Tamil Tigers), Ireland (IRA and related groups), Colombia (FARC), Peru (Shining Path) and even Israel (Kahane Chai)], somehow finds itself engaging in conspiracy theorizing about the unfair "political" treatment of misunderstood entities like Hamas and Hizballah. And it is incredibly frightening to see government agencies directly involved in our national security buy into this philosophy, wholesale.
One prominent Muslim American who wasn't consulted is physician M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. In response to an e-mail from the IPT about the memos, Jasser said the suggested changes could diminish American understanding of the ideological motivations behind those who threaten our security:
It is interesting that the only venues in which this nomenclature is even a question is in the west where Muslims are a minority and Islamists are able to deceive the majority or just live in complete denial. In Muslim majority nations the radicals call themselves Muslims, Islamists, and Jihadists in Arabic and every other language with little time spent admonishing society not to call them what they call themselves.
Certainly pious loyal American Muslims will be frustrated with the inappropriate use of the name of Islam and ‘jihad' in the militant causes by these radicals around the world. But that frustration should be directed toward frontal Muslim anti-Islamist and anti-militant causes and movements. Denying that considerable movements of radical Muslims exist around the world which exploit our religion and truly believe that their barbarism is ‘jihad' will only empower them more and delay the inevitable conflict within our faith community over "whose Islam, which Islam". For the USG to paternally dismiss the self-described nomenclature of ‘jihadists' and "Islamists" is to in fact embark into a realm which really is an internal struggle within the consciousness of the Muslim community. We should call the terrorists what they call themselves. Once any Muslim, let alone non-Muslims, begins to determine who is and who is not qualified to define ‘jihad', ‘Muslim', or ‘Islam' they are creating a clergy and a ‘church' with a communication and excommunication process. That is exactly what the likes of Bin Laden and other radical Islamists want.
"Words matter," the DHS report says. They sure do. That's why hiding the very language and ideological justification used by terrorists from the American people is misguided at best. It is why a soft-pedaled lexicon from unnamed experts and Islamist activists is counter productive.
Trying to isolate terrorists is a clear goal for the government. But moderate, er, mainstream Muslims, shouldn't need us to serve as language police to protect them from those who use their religion to terrorize the world.
By Steven Emerson | Fri, 2 May 2008 at 2:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Dangerous Word Games
This is a memo to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement), Hizballah (the Party of God), the Islamic State of Iraq, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and others:
Please consider changing your names to something a tad less religious sounding. Where you infuse your theological thought into radical politics and violence, things might get a little awkward for us. You see, if we point out that you identify yourselves with a religion, we might offend someone. That's the new policy of the U.S. government. It advises agencies to avoid using some of the same words that make up your very names.
All we're asking is that you meet us half way.
The Associated Press confirms what Robert Spencer reported Tuesday on Jihad Watch, that federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. embassies say words including "jihadists," and "mujahedeen" are off limits. In addition, references to Islam and Muslims are frowned upon, too:
The reason: Such words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates.
For example, while Americans may understand "jihad" to mean "holy war," it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good, says the guidance prepared for diplomats and other officials tasked with explaining the war on terror to the public. Similarly, "mujahedeen," which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context.
U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims."
Apparently the report does not say which American Muslims offered the recommendations. But it is virtually identical to a long campaign by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamist groups (Check out the examples we cited in our series on CAIR, then go back and read the AP report). So the U.S. government is taking its cues from a group that emanated from a secret Muslim Brotherhood operation in America, one with a stated goal of being "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
According to the AP, the government report says "even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world."
Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who convicted Egyptian blind Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman of conspiracies to blow up New York landmarks and murder Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, finds the policy misdirected:
If you want to encourage the reformers, then encourage them to drop the concept of jihad altogether. As a matter of history, jihad is a military obligation. As long as it is accorded a central place in Islam, the militants are always going to be deemed more authentic, more true to the faith of Mohammed, than the reformers.
Let's remember folks, the issue is not whether non-Muslim Western intellectuals and Pollyannas can nuance jihad into something it's not. It's whether the world's 1.4 billion Muslims — many of whom live in pockets of illiteracy where jihadist imams are incredibly influential — can be convinced that the reformers are credible. If we want the reformers to have credibility, it would be much more intellectually honest for them to argue that jihad should be abandoned because it worsens the Muslim condition in the modern world than that jihad is something other than jihad.
The policy shift raises a host of questions. Where has this worked? Will this have a chilling effect on a government employee's understanding of terrorist threats?
This change flies in the face of findings by Army Reserve Major Stephen Coughlin, a defense contractor at the Pentagon known for his studies of Islamic law. In his thesis for the Joint Military Intelligence College, "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad," Coughlin argues that we cannot defeat an enemy if we don't understand its motivations.
[T]he nature of today's jihadist enemies can only be understood within the context of their declared strategic doctrine to dominate the world. Just as we ignored Mein Kampf "to our great detriment" prior to World War II, so we are on the verge of suffering a similar fate today. The reason the Intelligence Community is unable to define the nature of the jihadi enemy, the Chairman implies, is because we have not "read what the enemy has said." In other words, we have failed to undertake an assessment of the threat based on the jihadi enemy's declared strategic doctrine.
A memo titled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication," and approved for use this week by the State Department states:
…avoid ill-defined and offensive terminology: "We are communicating with, not confronting, our audiences. Don't insult or confuse them with pejorative terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' which are considered offensive by many Muslims."
Which, not coincidentally, is the same line currently being pushed by another Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). ISNA General Secretary Muneer Fareed made news this week, calling on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain to refrain from using the term "Islamic" to describe Al Qaeda and other self-professed Islamic terror groups.
As reported in the Washington Times:
"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are."
Reportedly, an aide to McCain has stated that Senator will continue to use the word "Islamic" in his description of terror groups that invoke Islam to justify their heinous actions. The State Department, and other agencies involved directly and indirectly with the national security of the United States, should follow McCain's lead.
By Steven Emerson | Fri, 25 Apr 2008 at 10:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Do Hamas Columnists Get Paid? - Post Won't Say
Former President Jimmy Carter's Middle East trip has generated a fair amount of scorn because of his direct meetings and open embrace, both literal and figurative, of the terrorist group Hamas. Carter argues that peace between Israel and Palestinians cannot be reached without talking to the terrorists.
It is not a widely shared view. "The United States is not going to deal with Hamas and we had certainly told President Carter that we did not think meeting with Hamas was going to help" peace efforts, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Even the Washington Post ridiculed Carter in an editorial April 17:
Mr. Carter justifies his meetings with familiar arguments about the value of dialogue with enemies. But he misses the point. Contacts between enemies can be useful: Israel is legendary for such negotiations, and even now it is engaged in back-channel bargaining with Hamas through Egypt. But it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state.
That's an odd thing for the Post to say, considering an op-ed column by Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar, an active leader of the group in Gaza was published on the next page. The editorial acknowledges Zahar's writing "drips with hatred for Israel, and with praise for former president Jimmy Carter." But publishing the column, granting Zahar recognition and political sanction, is justified, the Post said, because it could "provide some clarity about the group he helps to lead, a group that Mr. Carter contends is worthy of being included in the Middle East peace process."
As if Hamas' agenda requires clarity. Its charter invokes Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The group "aspires to the realization of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"
Forget, for a moment, whether the Post's argument is consistent. There is a more immediate question at stake: Did the Post pay its standard fee for Zahar's column? The Post compensates guest writers with a minimum $200 fee, spokeswoman Rima Calderon said. Other factors, including whether the column was solicited or had multiple authors, could increase the amount. So, what did the Post pay Zahar?
"As I suspected, we don't make this information public," Calderon said in an e-mail.
Payment of any amount could violate U.S. law banning material support or other transactions with the designated terrorist group Hamas, said Jeffrey Breinholt, senior fellow and national security law director at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. Breinholt knows the law well. Before taking leave last summer, he was the deputy chief of the Department of Justice's counterterrorism section.
The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was passed in direct response to terrorist acts by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad aimed at thwarting U.S. peace efforts. It created a list of specially designated terrorist groups and individuals and outlawed providing any support to them. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives the President the power to prohibit transactions with people or entities deemed enemies of the United States.
"They could say payments to individual Hamas leaders do not qualify as support to Hamas, but that's fairly laughable," Breinholt said.
No one is suggesting the papers are in legal jeopardy. But it may be time to rethink the editorial approach. This is the latest in a series of examples in which major American newspapers yield space for Hamas propaganda. Last July, the Los Angeles Times published "Hamas' Stand," by the group's deputy political director Mousa Abu Marzook. Before that, the Post and New York Times published columns by Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef on the same day.
As the IPT's Brian Hecht reported in July:
The Post's Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, shed some light on the process of how op-eds penned by high-ranking Hamas operatives end up on the editorial pages of major American newspapers. Commenting on the confusion between the Post and the Times over the publishing of two competing Yousef pieces, Howell reported:
(Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred) Hiatt said, "Our piece came to us through a representative of Mr. Yousef [in the United States] with whom we'd dealt before. He assured us afterward that he did not realize a separate piece was in the works." (New York Times op-ed Editor David) Shipley's source was in London and assured him of the same thing. (emphasis added)
Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, the dean and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, responded to the Marzook column by questioning the rationale editorial editors offered then:
But such people do not deserve the status of a sagely byline, because that destroys the distinction between honorable men and women bound by basic principles of humanity and the despots and terrorists eager to destroy those values.
If the criteria is simply because "it is an important story," then would the editors have welcomed articles by Auschwitz's Dr. Josef Mengele justifying his gruesome medical experiments, or by the Virginia Tech killer explaining why he committed mass murder? Of course, newspapers have the right and responsibility to inform their readers about dictators and purveyors of terror. But they don't have the right to bestow editorial credibility on those bent on genocide.
The same point applies to the Post's Hamas column last week. Newspapers exist to bring information to the world and bring clarity to the complex. The question is whether publishing Hamas columns aids that call or muddies the waters further by granting legitimacy to an agenda that "drips with hatred."
By Steven Emerson | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 at 4:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
What about Sami? - New York Times Buys Into American Ikhwan Lobbying on Behalf of Convicted Terrorist
The New York Times today became the latest tool in an aggressive lobbying campaign aimed at sabotaging a terror investigation in northern Virginia.
The campaign to free Sami Al-Arian started last year, led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and other American Islamist groups after the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative was held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with consecutive grand jury subpoenas. He now is defying his third subpoena to testify in a terror finance investigation involving a Virginia-based network that provided Al-Arian's organizations with tens of thousands of dollars in the 1990s.
In 2006, Al-Arian was sentenced to 57 months in prison, with credit for time served, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to provide goods and services to the PIJ. Though his prison sentence is over, Al-Arian could be held in contempt again or even face criminal contempt of court charges. That's what the New York Times reports today. But, just like Al-Arian's supporters, today's Times story grossly mischaracterizes the case, distorts what Al-Arian has admitted and incorrectly states why he remains in jeopardy:
"The Justice Department and some independent terrorism investigators have long accused Mr. Al-Arian of being the main North America organizer for Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which has claimed responsibility for some of the more deadly suicide bombings against Israeli targets and which the United States has designated a terrorist organization.
Mr. Al-Arian's supporters, though, say that he is nothing more sinister than an outspoken Palestinian activist, and that the Justice Department has tried to exploit the post-Sept. 11 mood in the United States to punish him for that, using legal maneuvering to keep him behind bars."
If this were a secret tribunal, Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar might be excused for blindly accepting the representations of Al-Arian's attorneys and supporters. But there is an open record, one every reporter at the nation's supposed paper of record should be able to locate. Here's some help. Click here. It is Al-Arian's plea agreement. In a nutshell, it states that (Al-Arian) is pleading guilty because [the] defendant is in fact guilty."
On page 10 of the agreement, under the heading "Facts," it says "During the period of the late 1980s, and early to mid-1990s, defendant Al-Arian was associated with several organizations, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." Two paragraphs later, it says "Defendant Al-Arian performed services for the PIJ in 1995 and thereafter." That includes "hiding the identities of individuals associated with the PIJ." In addition, "Defendant Al-Arian was aware that the PIJ achieved its objectives by, among other means, acts of violence."
Al-Arian's initials appear at the bottom of each page and he signed the plea at the end. Evidence presented at Al-Arian's trial showed he was on the PIJ Shura Council – its governing board. On federal wiretaps, he could be heard arguing with the group's founder, Fathi Shikaki, about the PIJ's future in 1994 when a financial crisis threatened its very existence. That's all on the record. Yet the Times holds out the possibility Al-Arian is "nothing more sinister than an outspoken Palestinian activist" suffering the wrath of a vengeful Department of Justice.
Today's article comes just days after CAIR, MAS and the American Muslim Alliance held a news conference in New York decrying Al-Arian's plight.
Remember, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-support case of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and the organization is described by federal prosecutors as "affiliated with Hamas." Now CAIR has become a platform for falsely portraying Al-Arian as a victim. A picture of the jailed professor appears on its website home page, along with a brief note urging "American Muslims and other people of conscience to write letters in support of Dr. Sami Al-Arian." CAIR continues to sponsor screenings of a propaganda piece masquerading as a documentary that shows only the perspective of Al-Arian's family, while ignoring his efforts on behalf of the PIJ as well as his 15-year record of lying to anyone who asked about his PIJ activities.
In the past few weeks, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad referred to Al-Arian as "a political prisoner." MAS even compared Al-Arian - who had called for "Death to Israel"-- to Martin Luther King. U.S. District Judge James Moody saw the evidence of Al-Arian's deep involvement in the PIJ. This is what the judge said of him at sentencing:
"But when it came to blowing up women and children on buses, did you leap into action then? Did you offer to form a committee to protect the innocent? Did you call your fellow directors and enlist their aid in stopping the bombing or even stop the targeting of the innocent? No. You lifted not one finger, made not one phone call. To the contrary, you laughed when you heard about the bombings, what you euphemistically call ‘operations." You even pleaded for donations to pay for more such operations.
…Your only connection to widows and orphans is that you create them, even among Palestinians."
On April 16, CAIR Chairman Parvez Ahmed and Muslim American Alliance founder Agha Saeed issued an op-ed piece claiming that "it has been clear that [Al-Arian] was being targeted not for his actions, but for his political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His outspokenness about Israel's brutal occupation policies became a political hot potato in the post-9/11 climate of extreme suspicion of Muslims and Arabs."
"Since his arrest on Feb. 20, 2003, Al-Arian has proclaimed his innocence and until today maintains that the charges were purely political," Ahmed and Saeed said in the commentary.
As I showed above, that's not even close to true.
Now Al-Arian argues that his plea agreement gives him a right no American enjoys – the right to rebuff a federal grand jury subpoena without consequence. Al-Arian and his attorneys maintain that the plea deal ruled out any cooperation with law enforcement. But multiple courts have consistently rejected this claim, noting that there is no reference to any such absolution in the plea agreement itself or at the hearing at which the plea was entered. The 11th Circuit became the second appellate court, after the 4th Circuit, to dismiss Al-Arian's argument, stating it "is especially dubious where, as here, the plea agreement contains an integration clause stating that there are no other promises, agreements, or representations except those set forth in the agreement, and Al-Arian denied at his plea hearing that he pled guilty in reliance on any promises or inducements except for those found in the agreement."
Read the full 11th Circuit opinion here. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up his case, yet his attorneys press on, seeking any avenue of appeal, although the plea deal includes language stating that Al-Arian could not be charged with committing any other crime "known to the United States Attorney's Office or the Counterterrorism Section [of the Department of Justice] at the time of the execution of this agreement, related to conduct giving rise to this plea agreement."
So whatever Al-Arian's attorneys are arguing should have no effect on existing grand jury proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Why is Al-Arian's testimony so important? His organizations received money from the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a northern Virginia organization tied to a labyrinth of companies reported to have been involved in money laundering and linked to terrorist groups. Al Arian, as a beneficiary of these funds, clearly has pertinent information that would help prosecutors in their investigation of IIIT. But Al Arian has refused to testify before the grand jury, thus earning him contempt citations. Even if he reveals information that is self-incriminating, he is immune from further prosecution. What he is not immune from is his legal obligation to tell the truth to the grand jury. Why won't Al-Arian testify? Because he almost certainly has incriminating information about the alleged money laundering and alleged terrorist ties of IIIT, as outlined in this affidavit of a federal law enforcement official.
Amazingly, CAIR and MAS helped secure face to face meetings between the Al-Arian family and members of Congress, including House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, to lobby for pressure on the Department of Justice to release Al-Arian. At an event on Capitol Hill sponsored by Georgetown University April 3, attended by CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), one of only two Muslims in Congress, asserted that he would seek additional congressional support for Al-Arian, stating "the Al-Arian case is very serious, members of the Al-Arian family are in D.C. today, and I think they're working on his case, trying to get some attention from members of Congress, I'm speaking with them and I hope others do as well."
That members of Congress would agree to do the bidding of groups named as unindicted co-conspirators or which are directly affiliated with the radical Muslim Brotherhood, or Ikhwan, shows the extent to which radical Islamic groups have made inroads on Capitol Hill.
If CAIR and MAS were truly against terrorism, as they publicly proclaim, they would pressure Al Arian to testify, rather than pressure the government to let him go. That CAIR and MAS have embarked on such an aggressive campaign to free Al Arian demonstrates their support of terrorism. Thus it is even more disturbing to see Congressmen, FBI officials, State Department representatives and local law enforcement agree to meet with and embrace CAIR, MAS and others in their campaign on behalf of someone linked to terrorism and who has blocked efforts by prosecutors to unravel other terrorist connections. This is nothing short of scandalous.
In a web posting, Mahdi Bray, the executive director the Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation, lamented the failure of congressional leaders to pick up the charge:
As it became increasingly clear that the seemingly endless, unjust incarceration of Dr. Al-Arian would not end with the promised release as outlined in his agreement with the U.S. government, on March 21, MAS Freedom launched a Judiciary Letter Writing Campaign in addition to sending representatives to meet with U.S. Congressmen – all to no avail.
If the judiciary committee will not exercise its oversight in this gross miscarriage of justice, then the American people must, together with religious leaders of all faiths, human rights and civil liberties advocates, and all people of conscience, in asking what our public officials and members of congress have refused to ask, "What About Sami"?
Good question. Episodes such as this hunger strike bring to mind more of the words of Judge Moody when he sentenced Al-Arian in 2006. After hearing Al-Arian wax on about his love and respect for American justice, Moody hammered him as a "master manipulator" who "looked your friends and neighbors in the eyes and said you had nothing to do with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This trial exposed that as a lie."
‘What about Sami' did Moody see that set him off?
· Al-Arian ran "the active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement" and hid behind a charity name for "security reasons."
· He called on supporters to "damn America" for launching the 1991 Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion.
· He has proclaimed that Allah cursed the Jews by turning them into "monkeys and pigs."
· He set up a think-tank run by Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, who now commands the PIJ from Damascus (recently rebuffing an invitation to meet with former President Jimmy Carter). Though he secured Al-Arian's work visa and wiretaps show he intimately knew of Shallah's place as a PIJ board member, Al-Arian lied to the press and to his employers at USF after Shallah took over the group in 1995. He had no idea Shallah had terrorist connections, he said, even claiming to have never known Shallah's full name.
· He wrote a letter soliciting "true support of the jihad effort in Palestine so that operations such as these can continue," after a brutal double suicide bombing claimed 22 lives in Israel. This letter was written after President Clinton signed an executive order designating the PIJ a terrorist group and prohibiting any transactions with it.
Again, all of this is in the record and all of it is ignored when the Times discusses the case, naively accepting as true the representations of an admitted liar.
Each time an article is written mentioning Al-Arian, Stephen Flatow's in-box grows by one e-mail. It's been getting clogged with Google alerts lately as the campaign by Muslim Brotherhood-front organizations ratchets up.
In their news conference Tuesday, CAIR and MAS urged the media to pay attention to the case. Tuesday had another meaning for Flatow. It was the yahrzeit – the anniversary on the Jewish calendar – of his daughter Alisa's 1995 murder in a PIJ attack.
Seeing organizations that present themselves as lobbying on behalf of someone who supported, and worked with, his daughter's killers is a source of deep frustration, Flatow said in an interview.
"The Muslim community in the United States has been hijacked by the most extreme aspects of Islam," Flatow said. "Until we have the major Muslim groups condemning terrorists by name we're going nowhere, and that scares me."
Alisa Flatow was a 20-year-old Brandeis student studying in Israel when a suicide bomber blew up a bus she was riding on in 1995. It was less than three months after Al-Arian wrote his letter praising the double suicide bombing and seeking support "so that operations such as these can continue."
"I wish I could cut myself up into 22 constituent parts and make a sign that says ‘Sami Al-Arian is in bed with the PIJ that killed my daughter,'" Flatow said Wednesday. "I'd have liked to go to that press conference in New York with it. I'd like to be at every press conference of every showing of the documentary USA vs. Al-Arian. I just can't do it. I'm only one person."
That's too bad. The New York Times looks like it could use some re-education about what it means to provide support to the PIJ to counter the blatant misrepresentations in its de facto collaboration in the campaign to free Al-Arian.
By Steven Emerson | Fri, 18 Apr 2008 at 3:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Fighting Global Islamist Ideology the Key to War on Terror
(Note: This article summarizes my testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. My written remarks can be found here. Also, Congressional Quarterly's coverage of the hearing can be found here.)
American outreach efforts with the Muslim world have been nothing short of a disaster because we continue seeking partners among those who foster anti-American sentiment and who facilitate, rather than rebuke, radical Islamist ideology.
That's the message I brought to Capitol Hill Wednesday, where I testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on al Qaeda. Disturbing intelligence estimates are true – the threat from a reconstituted al Qaeda is at its highest point since 2001. While U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement actions have combined to thwart al Qaeda, its safe haven in Pakistan's remote tribal areas allowed it to regroup with a new generation of battle-tested leaders.
Al Qaeda's attention increasingly is drawn to Europe, which has been the victim of terrorist attacks planned in the tribal areas that transcend the Afghan-Pakistan border, and is a much closer and accessible target of these extremists than is the United States. In the past year, frightening plots in Spain, Germany and Denmark have been thwarted.
Last fall, officials arrested two German converts to Islam and a Turkish immigrant who allegedly were plotting bombing attacks at Ramstein Air Base and the Frankfurt International Airport. The suspects, who trained at an al Qaeda-affiliated camp in Pakistan, were found with enough explosives to make bombs bigger than those used in the London transit bombings and the 2003 attack in Madrid.
Danish police arrested eight suspects last September for allegedly planning a terrorist attack and storing unstable explosives "in a densely built-up residential area of Copenhagen." The suspects may have been targeting the Nørreport train station, Denmark's busiest, that serves 300,000 people each day.
None of this should make us complacent in the hope that al Qaeda has taken its sights off of us. A robust and successful counter-terrorist policy made up of good intelligence gathered by the FBI, asset forfeitures and designations by the Department of the Treasury, and other good work by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies within the intelligence community have combined to keep us safe from another attack.
Al Qaeda is clearly the most significant operational terrorist threat to this country, but it must be seen in the context of what drives it – an extremist ideology based on a puritanical interpretation of Islam. The biggest flaw in this nation's national security policy is that it is focused specifically on countering acts of terrorism and not countering the Islamist worldwide ideology that has spawned al Qaeda.
That is why I am critical of former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes. During her tenure, the U.S. government often chose to embrace the very people who foment and foster high levels of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. Hughes and her staff held meetings with the very people who should be avoided and denounced for their public, anti-American and pro-terrorist stances; embraced individuals and groups with long histories of support for terrorists and sought advice from individuals who are on the record as being supportive and friendly with terrorists and terrorist causes.
The recent decision to appoint an American observer to the Organization on the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group with a history of support for terrorist organizations and the causes championed by terrorists, rather than denounce the OIC for what it is, is extremely troubling. Under Karen Hughes, the State Department has met with leaders of various Muslim Brotherhood-front organizations in the United States, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), currently an unindicted co-conspirator in a major Hamas fundraising case in Dallas. ISNA publications have consistently supported Hamas including top Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook.
The State Department hardly is alone. The Department of Justice also has worked with ISNA, even as it labels ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in an ongoing Hamas-financing case in Dallas, and as evidence in that case shows ISNA is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Department of Homeland Security had an information table at ISNA's fall convention, set up adjacent to the radical Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks to reestablish the Caliphate.
The Brotherhood should be seen as anything but a potential partner. It should be designated as a foreign power and a threat, from a counterintelligence point-of-view, to the national security of the United States. The Muslim Brotherhood has stated clearly that it considers the United States to be its enemy, despite claims by some commentators that there exists a moderate wing of the movement that somehow does not support the movement's core goals and ideology.
The U.S. government generally, and the State Department in particular, needs to seek out genuine moderates in the Arab and Muslim world. What we have done instead is simply embrace and promote those who claim to speak for all Muslims, but parrot the themes of anti-Americanism, victimology and grievances that seek to place the blame for all the world's ills on U.S. foreign policy.
Arab and Muslim voices which promote accountability, democracy, human rights and freedoms must be elevated and embraced. Short of that, organizations, individuals and institutions in the Muslim world that are reflexively anti-American and pro-terrorist, or, at minimum, apologists for terrorism, should be denounced and avoided. All organizations with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood need to be treated for what they are: fascistic, paternalistic organizations that seek the return of the Caliphate.
Congress should require the lead agencies and departments in the Global War on Terrorism (most notably the FBI, CIA, and DHS) to fully and formally educate all counterterrorism personnel in the proclaimed Islamist ideology of al Qaeda the global Islamist movement. This ideology is easily accessible in Islamic religious texts and treatises such as Sayyid Qutb's Milestones. This has not been instituted at any agency.
More than six years after 9/11, this is inexcusable.
Instead, U.S. actions have been counterproductive, empowering the Brotherhood at a time it could have challenged its ideology and the terrorist groups that it has spawned. Contact with government agencies effectively anoints the groups as gatekeepers to the Muslim-American community. This policy, which continues to this day despite the criminal connections of many of these organizations, can only end in disaster for the interest of the United States both domestically and abroad.
When considering this matter, it is important and instructive to consider the Danish cartoons controversy. With the exception of a handful of courageous news outlets, the American media refused to republish the cartoons, claiming that "respect for religious values" overrode the principle of free speech.
For everyone else, free speech, the bedrock of western civilization, was suddenly thrown out the window at the first sign that many in the Muslim world were offended and retaliatory violence was possible. The U.S. State Department denounced the publication of the cartoons as "unacceptable."
This censorship and intimidation continues each day in a disturbingly growing volume. Critics of Islamism and extremism who have written books, spoken out, or published cartoons deemed "offensive" to Islam, have had their lives permanently changed – facing death threats and being forced underground or behind the protection of 24-hour security details. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch parliamentarian and a friend of Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker murdered for producing a film deemed "offensive" to Islam) has been forced to live under 24-hour protection and in hiding in her homeland and in the United States where she stayed for a year. Geert Wilders, another Dutch parliamentarian, produced a short film called "Fitna" that included images of the Quran being burned and has called for the banning of the Quran. For this admittedly offensive to some, but protected, transgression, Mr. Wilders has had to live in hiding under protection around the clock. His film was blocked by various websites, although anti-Christian and anti-Semitic films can be seen on YouTube and thousands of other sites routed through servers in the United States and Europe.
Canadian Muslim writer Irshad Manji has received death threats for her criticism of Islamic extremism and discussion of Islamic reformation. More recently, Syrian-born American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan has been forced into hiding after an appearance on Al Jazeera prompted a condemnation from Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Sultan generated ire by condemning violence tolerated and sanctioned by some Islamic scholars in debates on Al Jazeera. Qaradawi said Sultan "has insulted Islam." Subsequently, an Arabic newspaper published an advertisement sponsored by a group called "The Messenger of Allah Unites Us."
The advertisement features pictures of nine people, including Sultan (deemed a "villifier of the Divine Being, the Holy Religion and the True Religion") and Flemming Rose (cultural editor of the Danish newspaper that published the Danish cartoons) under the banner "Wanted for Justice."
Islamist grievances such as these are not valid. Other "grievances" include Israel's existence, the separation of church and state, secularism, pluralism, the absence of Islamic hegemony, the classification of Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups, and any perceived "insult" against Islam.
Unless we are prepared to accept severe restrictions on free speech, legitimize terrorist groups, allow the introduction of Islamic law in the U.S., prohibit any criticism of Islam, and propose the destruction of Israel, nothing we do will satisfy the ‘grievances' of the radical Islamic believers. And unless we recognize that the threat of Al Qaeda cannot be decoupled from the larger radical Islamic threat, a counter-terrorist focus on al Qaeda only is destined to fail.
By Steven Emerson | Thu, 10 Apr 2008 at 12:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
CAIR Pushes Phony Charges of Anti-Muslim Hysteria, Hate Crimes
For links to the complete CAIR series, click here: http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/172)
In a series of thorough and carefully documented articles, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has detailed the sinister side of the self-proclaimed Muslim civil rights group CAIR.
Today's tenth and final installment takes a look at CAIR's persistent -- and often contrived -- charges of "hate crimes" perpetrated against Muslims and supposed "anti-Muslim hysteria" rampant in this country.
Here are some of the highlights:
· CAIR's annual report on the status of Muslim civil rights in the United States repeatedly has included, among what it considers to be acts of anti-Muslim discrimination, law enforcement investigations involving Muslims.
· In its 2002 report, CAIR included the closure of HLF, GRF, and BIF and wrote, "Those who oppose the government closure of the charities believe the government violated the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights." The report also condemned the 2002 SAAR raids. CAIR wrote, "No criminal charges were filed and no evidence was produced to back up the government's actions…. In the view of many Muslims, what transpired was a form of collective punishment targeting Arabs and Muslims."
· In advancing the notion that government policy has resulted in an undeserved backlash against ordinary Muslims, CAIR seeks to muster opposition to the anti-terror laws it finds objectionable.
A June 2003 US News and World Reports column reasoned that CAIR and other groups "push the ‘bias' button so hard" because "the victim stance works," attracting attention in the media and Congress and raising large sums of money. "It encourages Muslims to feel angry and non-Muslims to feel guilty," the column noted, adding that "by pre-positioning all future criticism as bias, it tends to intimidate or silence even the most sensible critics."
· When CAIR issued a similar report in 2003, the Justice Department called the group's claims irresponsible. "We're talking about unfair criticism based on a lot of misinformation and propaganda," a department spokesman told the Associated Press.
· According to the FBI, CAIR has compromised potential hate crime prosecutions by ignoring requests to keep quiet about ongoing investigations.
A spokesman for the Chicago FBI cited the 2005 case of a local Muslim family who received telephone death threats from an unidentified individual – a caller who could face felony charges if found. CAIR issued a press release even after the FBI asked it not to publicize the case, the spokesman said, and thus "compromised or impeded our investigation."
Yaser Tabbara, then executive director of CAIR's Chicago office, said his organization issued a statement to make the FBI and other agencies "more responsive" and to put the matter "under spotlight." He added, "That makes them take this as seriously as we would want them to take it….We believe we did this in the best interest of the victim."
· Many incidents that CAIR has labeled "hate crimes" have turned out to be dubious.
In a July 2004 case, for example, a fire caused $50,000 in damage at a Pakistani-owned grocery store in Everett, Washington. Firefighters found a gasoline can and a derogatory message directed toward Arabs spray-painted on a wall, and a white cross spray-painted on a refrigerator.
Though police cautioned against hastily labeling the incident a hate crime, CAIR swiftly issued a press release that "called on local and national leaders to address the issue of growing Islamophobic prejudice following an arson attack on a Muslim-owned business in Washington State."
The following month, police arrested the store's owner on a federal arson warrant that accused him of setting fire to the store to collect insurance on the building and its contents. Jurors deadlocked 10-2 in favor of conviction at his 2006 trial; he subsequently was convicted of food stamp fraud and is scheduled for release in March 2008.
Similarly, CAIR issued a press release in August 2004 calling on the FBI to investigate "an intentionally-set fire" at a Muslim-owned grocery store in McAllen, Texas. CAIR quoted the store owner, a U.S. resident of Jordanian origin, as saying the fire "followed two separate incidents in which unknown parties painted the phrase ‘Go Home' on the door of the store."
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper added, "If whoever set this fire was motivated by anti-Muslim bias, that person needs to be brought to justice before he or she can strike again."
In September 2004, Amjad Abunar, the owner of the store, was arrested and charged with setting the fire himself. Abunar disappeared shortly before his December 2005 trial date and a bench warrant for his arrest remains in effect.
· Even while railing against supposed civil rights abuses in the United States, CAIR is silent regarding human rights violations committed by Islamists, including severe restrictions on the rights of women under fundamentalist regimes in Iran and Sudan. Indeed, CAIR has attacked critical reports on this subject by The New York Times, CBS and anti-slavery groups and activists, attacking those who report the atrocities as being biased against Islam.
In a March 1999 Internet posting, for example, CAIR attacked a New York Times article titled "Trip of Discoveries, Some Unhappy, in Iran," which had criticized Iranian practices of discrimination against women, including foreign visitors. CAIR asked readers to contact the reporter's supervisor or send a letter to the editor.
· CAIR denies the existence of a well-documented slave trade in Sudan, and considers any reference to slavery in that country an affront to Islam, because it is governed by Islamic law.
In 2000, CAIR's Hussam Ayloush asserted that it was "really stretching the situation away from the truth" to refer to "slavery raids by Muslims to enslave Christians." Such information, he said, was "coming out from certain groups from clear political agendas."
For links to today's full installment and the entire CAIR series, click here: http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/172
By Steven Emerson | Fri, 4 Apr 2008 at 1:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)