Wilders Defends Using Free Speech to Seek Quran Ban

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby had an interesting interview last week with Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian whose film Fitna juxtaposes Quranic verses with images on Islamist terrorism.

Wilders was in the U.S. to screen Fitna and defend his ideas, something the British government would not allow him to do. Credit Jacoby for going at several of the seeming contradictions in Wilders' ideology, especially his ardent support for free speech while simultaneously calling for the Quran to be banned. An example:

Q: With an outlook like this, don't you effectively exclude any Muslim from being an ally?

A: I am not excluding anybody. I don't even want Muslims from the Netherlands to leave my country. I'm not a [Jean-Marie] Le Pen. I want to help people be educated, be part of our society, get a job, respect our values. But it can never be possible on the basis of their violent ideology called Islam.

Q: Doesn't that contradict your defense of free speech?

A: Holland is not an Islamic country. I wouldn't want to have a system like in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Their ideology [says] to beat women, to kill Jews, to kill homosexuals. You can say, "Well, isn't that freedom of speech?" I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line - incitement of violence.

Q: You've said that under Dutch law, the Koran should be banned. Were you being rhetorical, or did you mean it literally?

A: I meant it. But you have to know the Dutch context for that. In the '70s, "Mein Kampf" was banned, and the left was so pleased. I am now proposing a ban on a book that is even worse than "Mein Kampf." And I'm not the first one - Winston Churchill compared "Mein Kampf" to the Koran in the 1950s.

Click here to read the entire interview.

Congressional Opposition to Freeman Intel Nomination Grows

A dozen members of Congress want an inspector general's review of Charles Freeman's financial ties to the Saudi Arabian government. Freeman is President Barack Obama's selection to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council.

Freeman was ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the 1990s and went on to run a think tank that receives money from the Saudi Arabian government called the Middle East Policy Council. He also has drawn criticism for harsh statements about Israel.

The letter to Edward Maguire, inspector general in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, focused on the Saudi connection, citing a 2006 statement from Freeman in which he praised "the generosity of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia" for creating an endowment for the Policy Council.

"We ask you to fully investigate Amb. Freeman's past and current relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – both personal financial disclosures and the list of all contributors to the Middle East Policy Council across all years that Amb. Freeman drew a salary from the foundation – and report back to Congress on any potential conflicts of interest."

The letter was signed by Republicans Michele Bachmann (MN) John Boehner (OH), Eric Cantor and Frank Wolf of Virginia, Bob Inglis (SC), Mark Kirk (IL), Doug Lamborn (CO), Leonard Lance (NJ) Patrick McHenry and Sue Myrick of North Carolina and Mike Rogers of Michigan. Joining them was Democrat Shelley Berkely (NV).

Meanwhile, Wolf has written his own letter, this one to President Obama, urging him to reconsider his choice of Freeman. Among Wolf's concerns is Freeman's work on an advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp., of which the Chinese government is a major stakeholder. The company has a "substantial investment in Sudan's oil sector has served as the lifeline to the regime of President Omar al Bashir, recently indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

New Republic blogger Jeffrey Goldberg noted that Freeman felt the worst thing China did during the Tiananmen Square massacre was "the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China."

A good set of links to all sides in the Freeman debate can be found here.

Canada's Unbelievable Immigration Panelist

A political activist wants Hamas and Hizballah removed from lists of terrorist organizations, to be replaced by the Israeli army, and he ..

That guy spent 11 years helping Canadian officials decide which immigrants merited entry into their country. The unbelievable circumstance involving Khaled Mouammar is detailed by John Ivison in a National Post column.

"No details are available on how many refugees Mr. Mouammar waved through the Canadian system, although one immigration lawyer who remembers him from his IRB days says he was known to have a 'very high' acceptance rate. Board members typically have sole discretion over whether to admit a refugee claimant."

Mouammar also is president of the Canadian Arab Federation. He considers Hamas and Hizballah to be "legitimate political parties" while Israel is guilty of genocide. Ivison wonders how this squares with the Immigration and Refugee Board's code of conduct. It requires members to conserve and enhance the organization's "integrity, objectivity and impartiality."

Appointments to the Refugee Board have been amended, officials say, but Ivison suggests "It might not be a bad idea to dust off some of those old files and see who did get into the country while Mr. Mouammar worked at the IRB."

That's putting it lightly.

Army War College Suspends Zuhur

The U.S. Army War College has suspended the author of two monographs which critics viewed as apologia for Hamas. Sherifa Zuhur has been suspended 10 days without pay, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports.

Zuhur allegedly threatened to air complaints about her feelings of mistreatment to the Arab Times, an Arab-American newspaper, and she already complained to the Middle East Studies Association. That constituted "a clear threat to attempt to damage the U.S. Army War College's reputation with malicious claims and misinformation for which you can offer no support," an email from her supervisor informing her of the suspension said.

Zuhur has lodged a series of complaints against War College officials, saying they have violated her academic freedom and that she has been subject to intimidation and harassment.

The Chronicle story describes an incident in which Zuhur claimed a college chairman burst into her office and thrust a letter at her so forcefully that she passed out. A witness disputed her account, especially her claim of fainting. In a letter, Zuhur said the school was trying to "torture" her for making the accusation. Zuhur was notified about the suspension by Douglas C. Lovelace Jr, director of the college's Strategic Studies Institute:

"I have never before dealt with such blatant examples of disrespect and contempt for one's supervisors and support staff," he wrote. "Nor have I encountered the level of obstreperousness you display in my 40 years as a supervisor."

Zuhur has made a series of complaints about the college, the Chronicle reported, including claims that she was sexually assaulted by a student, that a colleague generated critical media coverage of her and that administrators failed to accommodate her Muslim religious practices.

Perhaps this behavior should prompt renewed scrutiny on Zuhur's scholarship. In a monograph published in December by Strategic Studies Institute, Zuhur argued that Hamas had walked away from its Charter's call for Israel's destruction and was ready for long-term peace. Among Zuhur's recommendations were calls for the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with Hamas and recognizing what Zuhur called "Hamas' political and strategic development" instead of demonizing the group.

In response to criticism in an article by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Zuhur submitted a comment accusing IPT of trying to "forbid Americans from engaging in research and writing their own analyses? That will provide a great alternative to the totalitarianism you claim to be fending off."

Brotherhood's Approach Varies While Sticking to Goals

Apologists for the Muslim Brotherhood often argue that the organization, with branches in dozens of countries, has no central leadership or hierarchy. They also see a moderating path by the Brothers in recent years, moving away from support for violent jihad and toward acceptance of democratic political systems.

A new study issued by the Hudson Institute shows how those democratic trappings are simply a means to the same end the Brotherhood has always sought. Regardless of their home country, they share "a vision of bringing Islam back to its rightful place … creation of the Islamist state, which will implement sharia; unification of the Muslims; and spreading Islam, a universal religion, all over the world."

The study, by Israel Elad Altman, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy, at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, finds "a rigid commitment to a core of related principles, combined with pragmatism and flexibility as far as the strategy and tactics of achieving those objectives are concerned. There are no clear timetables to reach the goals, and gradual, methodical progress takes priority."

That has led many branches to use democratic politics as a tool, Altman writes, whereas past generations eschewed participation in politics.

No branch has enjoyed greater success from the adjustment than Hamas, created by the Brotherhood during the original Palestinian Intifada in 1987. Now it controls the government in Gaza and remains politically stronger than the secular Fatah movement. However, Altman notes:

"Hamas' winning of elections and becoming the government did little to moderate its principles, and it has not metamorphosed from a violent resistance and opposition movement to a pragmatic ruling political party. The electoral achievements of the Egyptian MB seemed to have imbued its leadership with a new sense of empowerment and reinforced its willingness to challenge the regime but did not make it more moderate."

The study also looks at Brotherhood branches in Syria and Jordan while detailing its ideological evolution.

Britain's Taliban Helpers

It's bad enough to have thousands of troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's far worse to learn key components in the improvised explosive devices killing and maiming those troops are made in your own country.

That's the scoop Telegraph reporter Con Coughlin informed British readers about Saturday. British Muslims are sending the Taliban remote controlled devices to detonate IEDs or, in some cases, delivering them personally.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was briefed last week on the remote control systems which can be used from as far as a mile away, Coughlin reports. It's not the first time British commanders have determined that British Muslims were assisting the Taliban:

"In August, Brigadier Ed Butler, the former commander of UK forces in Afghanistan, told the Telegraph that there are "British passport holders" in the Taliban ranks. Other officers believe their soldiers have killed British Muslims fighting alongside the Taliban.

And last year, it was revealed that RAF Nimrod surveillance planes monitoring Taliban radio signals in Afghanistan had heard militants speaking with Yorkshire and Midlands accents."

IED attacks on British troops have doubled in the past year as western military have weakened the group's ability to wage more conventional attacks.

"Libel Tourism" Bill Endorsed

The Washington Post on Friday endorsed legislation to protect American writers and publishers from "libel tourism," the recent practice of bringing libel suits in foreign courts where the burdens of proof are far more lax than here at home.

The Post editorial noted testimony earlier this week at a House subcommittee hearing about Rachel Ehrenfeld's unfortunate experience in British courts. Neither she nor her accuser live in England and her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It, wasn't even published there. But because copies of the book were bought via the Internet, a court granted jurisdiction and damages to one of the subjects of Ehrenfeld's book.

Legislation backed by U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) would allow American judges to bar foreign libel judgments from being enforced in the U.S. without first meeting constitutional protections and established case law. The editorial notes authors and publishers who have prevailed in American courts could even counter-sue "libel tourists" for bringing foreign litigation.

"The lawmakers were right to include this last provision, but they should be careful to make sure that it would not have the unintended consequence of weakening jurisdictional defenses that U.S. citizens have in foreign courts. It would also help immensely if Britain strengthened free-speech protections in its laws. It is encouraging that some British lawmakers are considering that."

The entire editorial can be seen here.

Dumbing Down UK Students on Terrorism

** Updated February 20: Officials have rescinded this bad idea.

What motivates people to strap on explosive belts and vests is an important avenue for psychiatric study. This change in curriculum in a British school district defies logic.

When teaching about the 7/7 attacks on London transit, the curriculum encourages students to consider the terrorist's point of view, as author Sail Suleman explained to the Guardian:

"Radicals, extremists and fundamentalists come in all different forms. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it justified? Was it pressure from individuals they were hanging out with? Hopefully, we'll encourage pupils to stay away from those individuals."

The 2005 attacks killed 52 people and wounded 700 others. The article rightly raises the question of whether teachers are qualified to lead such a discussion or whether the targeted teenage population can handle it.

Suleman's questions are better directed toward the curriculum itself. Is it wrong? Is it justified?

What's next? The softer side of Tim McVeigh? How about Charles Manson? A dispassionate analysis of this guy's ideology?

DOT: No Discrimination in Flying Imam Case

US Airways did not discriminate against six imams when it removed them from a 2006 flight following passenger complaints, the U.S. Department of Transportation has concluded following an investigation:

"[W]e find the decision to remove the Imams from the aircraft was based on information available to the captain at the time and was reasonable. This information included the observation of a passenger who gave an unsolicited handwritten note to a Flight Attendant describing six suspicious Arab men spaced out in seats throughout the cabin referring to Allah and making anti-U.S. comments, the observations of a Flight Attendant that two of the six passengers requested seatbelt extenders, which can also be used as restraining devices or weapons even though only one passenger appeared to need the device as an extender."

…

"It appears that the captain decided to remove the Imams because of security concerns as a result of the sum of the Imams' actual and perceived behavior, not their race or ethnicity. The fact that the captain's concerns were not borne out in hindsight does not make the action that he took discriminatory."

The airline was faulted for failing to book the imams on later flights after law enforcement concluded they posed no threat. They were traveling from Minneapolis to Phoenix.

The letter detailing the investigation's conclusions was sent from DOT assistant general counsel Samuel Podberesky to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Jan. 14. CAIR filed a complaint on the imams' behalf and supported a lawsuit against the airline and the anonymous passengers who alerted flight attendants to some suspicious behavior. The "John Doe passengers" later were dropped from the litigation.

It wasn't a total waste, though. It led to this evisceration of CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper by Tucker Carlson. CAIR still posted it on YouTube.

Defining Extremism – Support for Shari'ah, Jihad Could be Factors

British officials reportedly are contemplating a definition of what makes a Muslim extremist. A Guardian story reports the label could apply to those who advocate for Shari'ah, or Islamic law and who also desire the caliphate, or the idea of an international Islamic state. In addition:

"• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan."

The story anticipates an uproar that would result from labeling "the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists." Nothing similar is likely to happen here. Given what leaders of U.S.-based Islamist groups have already said publicly (here, here, here, here and here for starters), such a proposal would ensnare nearly all the major U.S. Muslim advocacy groups. Some already carry similar labels based upon real evidence presented in court. See the last page of this one.

One former FBI agent is telling Homeland Security workers that Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups in the U.S. are slowly introducing Shari'ah into the United States. John Guondolo recently retired from the FBI after working in counterterrorism at the Washington Field Office.

In recent remarks in Tennessee, Guondolo called the effort "political subversion, this is an insurgency in the United States." He singled out the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as an example, calling the group a Hamas front. FBI officials last year told CAIR it was cutting off outreach efforts with the group until it answered questions about Hamas ties among its founders.

Newer Postings   |   Older Postings