In Defense of the Constitution

News & Analysis
December 23, 2008

     James Yee & CAIR: "Trust" Terror?

     A jury has found the remaining defendants know as the "Fort Dix Six" guilty of conspiring to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix. The jury found that the men had made an agreement to attack soldiers at the base "and had taken at least one step toward carrying it out."

     In record time,  CAIR and their stooge James Yee rose to the defense of Islamist jihadists who wanted to kill fellow americans, and to insult the integrity of FBI and law enforcement personnel who acted quickly and bravely to defend our countrymen from a terror attack.

     James Yee:

"It seemed to me as if the case was pretty flimsy," ... "It seems like these guys under
normal circumstances weren't going to do anything until a government informant
initiates contact with them and incites them,"

 

     It's amazing to see James Yee speak about "normal circumstances" dictating the course of this case. It was under normal circumstances that the FBI learned of the Fort Dix Six's jihadist practices when one of the six brought a home made terror training video tape to a shop to have the tape converted to DVD.  The employee watched the tape in the course of making the copy, and viewed alarming and shocking militant jihad-like activity which prompted him to call the authorities. Undoubtedly due to the efforts of groups like CAIR, the clerk actually worried over being called a racist if he called the authorities and alerted them to what he had seen.

 

    
     James Yee continues to lecture Americans about the feelings of his community:

"All of this doesn't help build trust with the American Muslim community, and that is vital if our
law enforcement is going to fight terrorism,"..."If anyone can improve security, it's our
community, but we need to be seen as trusted partners, not potential suspects."

 

    Unbelievable...this from a "man" who arguably dishonored both his officer's commissioning oath and the US Army uniform he wore while "ministering" to Islamic terrorists detained at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...a man without honor presumes to lecture anyone about trust?  James Yee, poster boy of the Front Group created for Hamas - CAIR, has the nerve to act as if he speaks for the American Muslim community and tell us that we should have "trusted" that the Fort Dix Six were nothing but innocent gun-toting Boy Scouts not worthy of any investigation?

     Not everyone in the convicted men's community agrees with Yee.

     Fuat "Mike" Mamo of Cresskill, New Jersey had this to say, specifically of the three Albanian born brothers who were convicted:

"I don't know what they were thinking...they were just out of their mind and they should be
put away for life. The Albanian community is nothing like this... we come from a country
that has a reputation for religious diversity and tolerance.  To go against the American
government, that's unacceptable to our community."

     Jim Sues, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations chimed in:

"Many people in the Muslim community will see this as a case of entrapment...from what
I saw, there was a significant role played by the government informant."

    Jim Sues seemingly wants everyone to ignore that there would have never been the need for any FBI "informants" had the men never made the suspicious video that set the whole investigation in motion.

 

     Anti-CAIR sought the opinion of a respected American Muslim on the subject of the Fort Dix Six convictions and the statements of CAIR and James Yee. 

     Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy was kind enough to provide the following response:

************************

I never ceased to be amazed at the depths to which Islamist groups like CAIR and their supporters like James Yee will stoop to
find some kind of fault with the prosecution, whether fact or fiction, when they are faced with a conviction by a jury of our peers. 
The hypocrisy of Islamist organizations like CAIR has no limits. Ibrahim Hooper, NIhad Awad, and CAIR had the temerity to send
out a press release on November 24, 2008, asking President-elect Obama to "restore the rule of law" reiterating Awad's words
before a national CAIR audience in D.C at their annual banquet. That press release was sent out on the heels of the convictions
of the leadership of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas on all counts for funding terrorism. CAIR had a problem with that example
of ‘the rule of law'.

On December 22, 2008, Jim Sues, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of CAIR also certainly seems to have a problem
with the "rule of law." He stated that "many people in the Muslim community will see this as a case of entrapment…from what I saw
there was a significant role played by the government informant".

Not only did the jury disagree with that, but Patrick Rowan, assistant US attorney general for national security said it best, "The word
should go out to any other would-be terrorists of the homegrown variety that the United States will find you, infiltrate your group, prosecute
you and send you to a federal prison for a very long time." That is exactly what we should be hearing from my fellow coreligionists. We should
as a faith community be putting every would-be militant Islamist on notice that our community will have zero tolerance for any behaviors
which are militant. Not only will the government infiltrate these groups but the organized Muslim community will help them do it.

Rather than give us such long overdue reassurances, CAIR's apologists again prove that when it comes to the rule of law there appears
to be a different one for Islamists than for those adjudicated by juries in New Jersey or Dallas. James Yee also provided an incredulous
comment after the guilty verdict. "All this doesn't help build trust with the American Muslim community, and that is vital if our law enforcement
is going to fight terrorism." Mr. Yee, please speak for yourself  and cease and desist representing yourself as a spokesperson for the
American Muslim Community and I am personally offended that you are touted as a representative of  American Muslims who are former
military officers. As a former US Navy Lieutenant commander, I take great umbrage with an individual who has not only taken the oath of
citizenship but that of a US military officer and yet portrays a sentiment that he and thus by inference, ‘the American Muslim community'
has a problem with government informants and their efforts to infiltrate possible jihadist cells. With Mr. Yee's pronouncements on the heels
of this case, it becomes difficult to see when he would ever find it appropriate for the government to do its job and infiltrate radical cells with
whom they have probable cause and stop their activities.

Mr. Yee, we have an obligation as citizens and as officers to our oath and to uphold the law regardless of any other allegiance to a faith
group or political movement like Islamists. Mr. Yee goes on to say that, "If anyone can improve security, it's our community, but we need
to be seen as trusted partners, not potential suspects." It is certainly interesting that Mr. Yee seems to identify with the individuals who
now stand convicted of conspiracy to kill military personnel. I certainly do not and if anything the fact that they called themselves Muslims
makes it more important that they be made an example of by the Muslim community in my own estimation.

It is truly sad that such offensive comments are touted as representing the sentiments of the American Muslim community. In fact, if media
were to interview non-Islamist or better yet, anti-Islamist Muslims they would find many of us celebrating the verdict and encouraging continued
heroic reporting like that of the store clerk which led ultimately to the infiltration and conviction. From Mr. Yee's comments, it would appear
that he would have not reported the video to authorities as reporting these jihadists and looking upon them as ‘potential suspects' would alienate
Muslims- his Muslims that is. Sorry, but law-abiding Muslims who believe in our oath to protect the US from enemies foreign and domestic will
report jihadist activity as soon as we see it and leave it to the authorities and the justice system and the "rule of law" which we swore to uphold
to determine their guilt or innocence. These individuals stand convicted and Mr. Yee, Mr. Sues, and other Islamist apologists from CAIR cannot
get themselves to laud the tireless efforts of our Homeland Security and Justice Departments. Their comments speak volumes to the problems
endemic among those who believe in the ideology of political Islam. To them, justice is not about American security or the rule of law as defined
by evidentiary procedures in the United States. Rather to the Islamist, justice is about preferential treatment for Islamist Muslims over the rule
of law which is thankfully applied in this country blind to one's personal religious practice. Draw a cartoon, criticize an Islamist, or report unusual
activity on an airplane and the wrath of Islamist leaders will be brought upon you. However, be convicted of a conspiracy to kill military personnel
by a jury and CAIR's apologists will find a reason to apologize for the verdict and put America on warning that they will not help improve security
if these types of criminals are targeted.

M. Zuhdi Jasser
President, AIFD

*************************

     'Nuff said ...

Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org

Story Links:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/23/america/Fort-Dix-Plot-Optional.php
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20081222_ap_manymuslimsskepticaloffortdixverdicts.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05132007/news/regionalnews/clerk_rings_up_n_j__jihad_jerks_regionalnews_jana_winter______post_correspondent.htm?page=0
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/press_032_05.html
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/FBItiesCAIRHamas
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/jurors_in_fort_dix_case_find_i.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270601,00.html
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/

Myrick, Wolf Smack AIG's New Shariah Financing

Financial giant AIG's decision to offer a shariah-compliant insurance program is drawing heat in court and on Capitol Hill. AIG is operating today with help from a $40 billion taxpayer bailout.

According to the Insurance Journal, an AIG subsidiary's shariah-compliant homeowner's insurance plan is the first of "a series of Shari'ah-compliant (Takaful) product offerings in the U.S." Companies involved in entertainment, alcohol and pork would not be eligible for investment from program funds.

In a letter dated Thursday to AIG board chairman Edward Liddy, U.S. Reps. Sue Myrick (R-NC) and Frank Wolf (R-VA) note that, for all its seeming appeal, shariah financing is used by terrorist groups from Al Qaida to Hamas to route money because it is difficult to track its flow. Calling the American people "de facto stockholders in your company," the two members of Congress bluntly warned AIG to be careful if it should continue its Shariah plan:

"We hope you can verify what hands your money passes through, because we would hate to see the FBI visit you one day, look into your books, and tell you that money from AIG found its way into terrorist hands.

You may call us, and other Americans, who warn you about your new Shariah products, fear mongerers. Many who warned about the subprime market collapse were also labeled in the same manner.

In fact, your touting of Shariah finance is much like your marketing and promotion of subprime loans. Many in the financial industry believed subprime loans were a great way to make money and would cause no harm. Do not make the same mistake by support Shariah finance, because, as we have stated, there are far more dire consequences."

Myrick helped created the bi-partisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus. Wolf is the ranking Republican on the House State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee and human rights champion. They noted other aspects of Shariah law, including the stoning to death of adulterers. See their letter here.

AIG's plan also generated a lawsuit in Michigan against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Federal Reserve Board claiming that it would violate the First Amendment to have taxpayer money going to "approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Shariah-based Islamic religious activities."

Rejected Complaint Still Makes its Point

A Canadian human rights council has rejected a complaint from an online magazine editor against an imam the editor accused of engaging in "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits communication which "is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

Imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti did just that to gays, women, Jews and people he considers infidels in his book, "Islam or Fundamentalism ? In light of the Qor'an and the Sunna," Marc Lebuis said in his complaint. Al-Hayiti writes gays and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life" and beheaded if caught performing sodomy. Women are inferior to men. Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth" and "injustice will never disappear from the face of the earth before Islam and Sharia are properly applied throughout the world." Those who leave Islam should have their necks cut, the book said.

But in a December 5 letter, a Canadian Human Rights Commission official said the imam's writing weren't likely to provoke hatred or contempt and the complaint would be dropped.

Lebuis filed his complaint last April, just after the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint against journalist Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine accusing them of publishing Islamophobic articles. The commission said it lacked jurisdiction to act, but still criticized Steyn and Maclean's for "promoting societal intolerance" and disseminating "destructive, xenophobic opinions. (Steyn weighs in on the Lebuis decision here.)

At the time, Lebuis explained his complaint actually was an attempt "to force a debate on freedom of expression and bring the public and the media to denounce the new role that CHRC is taking on, that is: Censor of ‘blasphemy'." At the same time, he hoped to draw attention to Al-Hayiti's Salafi ideology, which he labeled dangerous enough to be outlawed.

But he didn't sound as if he expected a different outcome. That doesn't mean he feels like he lost:

"My sole purpose is to stimulate a public debate and strengthen freedom of expression. It is not racist or islamophobic to criticize the Salafi ideology. In fact, it is necessary to do so. It is ‘islamolucidity'."

A Poor Choice for Poster Child

The NSA's warrantless surveillance program remains the focus of debate as President Bush prepares to leave office. The program allowed telephone calls and e-mails to be monitored without a warrant when they included U.S. residents and people abroad with suspected ties to al-Qaida or its affiliates.

While the argument is focused on some specific cases, it really is "a purely political matter aimed at President Bush and seeking to discredit the framework of anti-terror measures adopted during his tenure," Stephen Schwartz argues in this Weekly Standard column.

It is fair to wonder why opponents can't come up with a better test case than Ali al-Timimi. Timimi is serving a life sentence after being convicted of "soliciting others to wage war against the United States; counseling others to engage in a conspiracy to levy war against the United States; attempting to aid the Taliban" using explosives and firearms to further the scheme.

His lawyers filed a new appeal Tuesday, saying he had been subject to the surveillance and that he should be given a new trial because they were deprived of information resulting from it.

Schwartz notes that House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel Chairman Rush Holt (D-NJ) wants an investigation into whether government officials withheld information from Timimi's defense team. Timimi's conviction is based upon his coordination with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), the group believed to be behind last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Lest anyone wonder why U.S. officials would be concerned about the LET, Schwartz explains:

"LET is a powerful fundamentalist militia financed by the Pakistani government in its fight with India over Kashmir. The group has a close relationship with al Qaeda; prominent Guantánamo captive Abu Zubayda, a top al Qaeda operative, was arrested in a LET safehouse in Pakistan in 2002. The group is committed to terror in the West as well as in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Indeed LET is present wherever Pakistani radicals are found, and was involved in the 2006 plot at Heathrow airport that changed airline policies on passengers carrying liquids."

Timimi's case shows that the LET has followers in the United States, a true cause for concern. But as Schwartz dryly notes: "'Domestic spying,'" at least at this point, apparently trumps "international plotting of mass murder" as a matter for congressional scrutiny."

Is US Aid Underwriting Virulent PA Programming?

It is well established that Hamas-run television features programming indoctrinating children with a hatred for Israel, Jews and glorifying suicide bombings.

Over at the Daily Beast, Gerald Posner posts a series of video clips from the Palestinian Authority that show the same kind of propaganda. The PA, of course, is supposed to be the moderate voice of the Palestinians, recognized by the U.S. as an honest negotiating partner in peace talks.

What's worse, Posner claims, is that U.S. aid is being used to in producing the hateful images to children, which include "a steady drumbeat of indoctrination to kill Israelis, with idealized images of virgins who await suicide bombers."

You need to follow the link and see the clips for yourself. They are all under a minute.

The Threat of Radical Brit-Paks

Each year, hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis who hold British passports travel to Pakistan to see family and friends. Some, however, sneak off to terrorist-training camps in Pakistan's remote and uncontrolled tribal areas.

So what's to keep these terrorist-trained Brit-Paks, as they are known, from using their passports to board a plane to the U.S.? That is one of the disturbing issues Con Coughlin raises in the Telegraph today.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown acknowledges his security services are tracking 20 active terror plots at any one time. Many, Coughlin writes, involve "‘Brit-Paks' who have been radicalised and trained in Pakistan and managed to return undetected to Britain."

All of this points attention back on Pakistan and the depth of its commitment to curtail the use of its land to train jihadists. It is promising just such a crackdown in the wake of last month's Mumbai terrorist attacks:

"But just as Islamabad promised to work closely with Washington after the September 11 attacks, and the British government following the July 7 bombings, the Pakistani government's ability to deliver on its promises is highly questionable, leading to some within the West's security establishment to ask whether the Pakistanis are really serious about rooting out the terrorists.

The reason successive Pakistani governments have struggled to mount an effective campaign against Islamist terror cells is the country's all-pervasive Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), which created most of the terror groups in the first place. Al-Qaeda was the product of the ISI's support for Islamist radicals fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, while LeT was created by ISI to pressure Delhi into relinquishing control of Kashmir."

The question is what happens if more attacks are found to have roots in the Pakistani tribal areas and if such attacks hit Britain or the U.S.

Murder and Honor in Pakistan

A British author is telling a shocking story about last month's murder of a Pakistani military officer. Major-General Alavi, a former head of Pakistan's special forces, was gunned down outside Islamabad November 19.

 

Alavi has predicted his death in a recent meeting with Carey Schofield. It was because of this letter which Alavi gave Schofield, which accuses other Pakistani military leaders of striking secret agreements with the Taliban. One general allegedly struck an agreement to pay Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud to protect the army from attacks. Mehsud is believed to be behind the assassination of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

 

Schofield, author of the forthcoming Inside the Pakistan Army, writes in the Sunday Times that Alavi felt his concerns were being ignored:

"Aware that he was risking his life, he gave a copy to me and asked me to publish it if he was killed. Soon afterwards he told me that he had received no reply.

‘It hasn't worked,' he said. ‘They'll shoot me.'

Four days later, he was driving through Islamabad when his car was halted by another vehicle. At least two gunmen opened fire from either side, shooting him eight times. His driver was also killed."

Alavi was a natural target for terrorists working in Pakistan, but he was killed by 9mm pistol shots, the kind used by the army. Schofield described the murder as "far more clinical than a normal militant attack."

Alavi had been forced out as head of Pakistan's special services three years ago in what he considered a fabricated set of allegations meant to silence his criticism that his country was letting Taliban fighters operate freely and strike western troops in Afghanistan. Writing the letter, and making sure Schofield took it public if something were to happen to him, was his way of setting the record straight.

 "I want justice. And I want my honour restored," Schofield says Alavi told her. "And you know what? I [don't] give a damn what they do to me now. They did their worst three years ago."

Their Anti-Drug Advisor? Keith Richards

Britain's former intelligence chief is calling on Scotland Yard to sever ties with an anti-terror advisor after the Times of London reported the advisor is wanted by Interpol for his work with an alleged Tunisian extremist movement.

Mohamed Ali Harrath has been subject to a "red notice," which roughly equates to being on a most wanted list, since 1992. Harrath was a founder of the Tunisian Islamic Front, which Tunisian officials say seeks to create "an Islamic state by means of armed revolutionary violence."

The Interpol notice indicates Harrath is wanted for "Counterfeiting/forgery, crimes involving the use of weapons/explosives, terrorism," the Times reports.

British authorities rejected a Tunisian extradition request in 1997. Then they went a step further, hiring Harrath as an advisor in the Scotland Yard Muslim Contact Unit to help prevent terrorism and extremism, the Times reports.

Baroness Neville-Jones, the country's former intelligence chief, said Harrath had to be let go and offered a series of pointed questions on Monday:

"Did the Home Office access this information before allowing Mohamed Ali Harrath to enter, and did the Metropolitan Police check it before allowing him to work for them? If not, why not? If they did access Interpol's data, how could the Home Office let in and the Met employ an individual with a Red Notice for alleged links to a suspected terrorist organisation?"

Harrath denies that the Tunisian Islamic Front has any terrorist connection and argues Tunisia trumped up charges against him. The Times interviewed Tunisia's justice minister, who said that while in London, Harrath sent Islamic Front recruits to terrorist camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Harrath called those "completely outrageous and false" allegations. The newspaper notes that he "refuses, however, to discuss what he did between 1995 and 2000 in Britain."

Distinguishing Muslims from Islamists

This might be a longer blog post than usual, but Hudson Institute Center for Eurasian Policy director Zeyno Baran has written something that clearly and succinctly distinguishes the ambitions of Islamists versus the rest of the Muslim world.

Baran was among the panelists last week at a forum sponsored by the Hudson Institute and the Pew Charitable Trust on America's role in promoting democracy abroad. The 100-minute discussion, moderated by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, featured a good exchange of ideas and an assessment of the challenges we now face. It can be seen here. But it is Baran's paper, "The Case for Liberal Democracy," that really merits attention.

America is losing ground in the global war of ideas, she argues, in large part because it has sought short-term successes over a longer term strategy of how to best promote democracy. The push for elections helped legitimize Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in 2006. That wasn't what U.S. policy makers had in mind. Baran starts with a basic question:

"Why is Islamism such a threat to democracy? Because in Islamist ideology, Islamic law sharia regulates every aspect of an individual's life; since it is considered to be God's law, no compromises are possible. The holistic nature of Islamist ideology makes it fundamentally incompatible with the self-criticism and exercise of free will necessary for human beings to form truly liberal and democratic societies."

To Islamists, democratic elections are merely the mechanism to gain the power needed to implement sharia, which can fool naïve westerners who think elections by themselves are signs of progress in the Arab and Muslim world:

"There are Muslims who are democrats and who accept democratic rule of law, of course—I proudly count myself among them—but Islamists' understanding of these terms is very different. Islamists have not only hijacked traditional Islam but also concepts like democracy, freedom and justice. They are sincere when they use these terms, but for an Islamist, ‘justice' means ‘the full implementation of sharia law,' while ‘freedom' means ‘free to merge religion with the state.'"

The bottom line is that the U.S. does not understand what Islamism is. As Baran said during the December 10 forum, "Muslims can be democrats just like any other religious people can be. Islamists cannot and are not."

Participating in elections provides a veneer of moderation that cloaks a radical agenda, Baran argues in her paper. It is a concession that makes it possible to bring about "an uncompromising worldview." That is why the Muslim Brotherhood has advocates who say it is a moderate group despite its goal of making sharia the governing basis of society:

"It is true that most affiliates of this movement do not directly call for terrorist acts, are open to dialogue with the West, and participate in democratic elections. Yet this is not sufficient for them to qualify as "moderate," especially when their ideology is so extreme. Turning a blind eye to the Brotherhood and its ideological extremism—even if done for the sake of combating violent extremism and terrorism—is a direct threat to the democratic order."

True democratic reform requires a long term investment in political stability and education. Hungry people who live in fear won't embrace democracy. They need to learn critical thinking skills and feel confident in their ability to provide for their families. Such changes don't come quickly or cheap, Baran acknowledges. But:

"[C]ompared to how much US is spending on wars and military budget, the amount will be minimal with huge returns."

It's an important paper in understanding why Islamists, even when they embrace a path of democracy over violence, still harbor an agenda that is antithetical to a free society. Read the whole thing here.

Is Soft Power Working with Pakistan?

Never let anyone accuse Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom Director Nina Shea of offering bland platitudes. In a column Thursday, Shea advocated a "soft power" approach to fighting terrorism as advocated by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

In the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attack believed to be the work of the Pakistani-based Lashkar e-Taiba, that meant "imposing one's will and more a function of shaping behavior" more than traditional military assaults. Shea summarized the Gates philosophy:

"'…long-term success in the conflict against a "malignant form of terrorism inspired by jihadist extremism" will depend less on military engagements and more on the 'overall ideological climate within the world of Islam.'"

In response to the attack on Mumbai, which was orchestrated and launched from next door, Shea wrote:

"First, Pakistan must close all schools and offices nationwide of LeT's charity front, Jamaat-ul-Dawa.."

That's largely what happened Friday, with officials placing LeT founder Hafiz Saeed under house arrest and closing nearly 20 Jamaat offices. It is an encouraging start, Shea said in response to an e-mail question, but it is far too soon to relax the pressure.

"Saeed has been detained before only to be freed shortly afterwards," she noted. "Pakistan's new government must follow through in bringing Saeed to justice and completely shutting down Jamaat's operations, as well as other madrassas and schools that serve as jihadi indoctrination centers. The failure to do so would pose a serious threat to world peace."

Newer Postings   |   Older Postings