Doc's Talk: The Terror Apologist in the Edwards Camp

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

The Terror Apologist in the Edwards Camp

Steven Emerson
IPT News
January 15, 2008
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/589

He's an underdog candidate for President who needs all the help he can get against bigger-named, better-financed rivals. For former U.S. Sen. John Edwards (D-North Carolina), that has meant embracing the leader of a the American Muslim Council (AMC), an organization with a history of defending Palestinian terrorists and whose founder is in prison after pleading guilty to violating anti-terror legislation. M. Ali Khan, a Chicago investment banker, has been the AMC's national director since 2003. Khan has helped organize at least two fundraisers for Edwards and, in a series of internet postings, described how he has reached the inner sanctum of the former senator's campaign advisors.

He spent most of December in Iowa, where Edwards finished second in the Jan. 3 caucus.

"There are about 10 Edwards insiders that have been invited to help John in Des Moines," Khan wrote in a December 2 post. "Most Insiders are from Chapel Hill, but we have Portland, Seattle, LA. New York and myself from Chicago."

Khan is listed by the Edwards campaign as a fundraising solicitor and he helped host at least two campaign fundraisers, one June 13 and one September 4. He has been with AMC at least since 1998. The organization was founded in 1990 by Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi was arrested in September 2003 and subsequently indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia for illegal transactions with Libya. He is now serving a 23-year prison sentence.

Government officials also say Alamoudi served as a financial courier for Al Qaeda. After Alamoudi's September 2003 arrest, Khan adopted the pose of Captain Renault in "Casablanca," "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" The Washington Post reported:

"Ali Khan, a Chicago investment banker who formerly was AMC's treasurer, said yesterday Alamoudi controlled all its affairs. Alamoudi brought in large sums of money from Saudi Arabia but refused to detail their origin, Khan said.

Khan said that for years he sought an accounting of the funds, but Alamoudi refused. Alamoudi has publicly acknowledged bringing funds from Saudi Arabia for his organizations."

As an investment banker, Ali Khan might reasonably be expected to have been more diligent in carrying out his fiduciary responsibilities of the treasurer of a large organization, and to have inquired more closely into the sources of AMC's funding.

Khan and his organization have made some disturbing statements, including some which can only be viewed as de facto support for terrorists.

For example, on October 4, 2004 in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, AMC issued a bizarre opinion piece entitled "Osama bin Laden." The op-ed only fails to condemn Bin Laden for his many crimes, but raises the possibility that the arch-terrorist is some kind of romantic revolutionary dedicated to the cause of "liberation" like Fidel Castro. Bin Laden, the article notes, is but one man living in a cave. Yet his death or capture could change the election's outcome:

How could a man who holds no position on par with the presidency have such power? Is this single individual the force of evil incarnate, as the president has portrayed, or is there a substance to the man we cannot comprehend? Is the manner in which he has galvanized and inspired Muslim youth in the Middle East a power phenomenon like that of a Hitler? Or is his being in a solitary and isolated state a modern day version of Fidel Castro's hiding out in the swamps while plotting revolution, or Ho Chi Min (sic) fighting in the jungles of Vietnam , or Nelson Mandella (sic) pressing for freedom from a jail cell?

How one person could have such power in the face of such an awesome adversary as the United States is a question every black and minority in America should ask. Because if this one man is able to alter the dynamics of the entire world, then perhaps America's 60 million minority citizens can find a way to right the racism of this country.

…

Osama bin Laden has said he seeks the liberation of the Muslim world from American dominance. He is one man, sitting silently in a cave, praying five times a day to a force unseen, believing in the power that delivered to the others the freedom of their nations.

What's most astonishing is that the article remains on the AMC website today, more than three years later. The same website has defended people accused of supporting terrorism. For example in March 2006 an article about Sami Al-Arian was posted under the headline "Commentary: America's Conscience on Trial." Al-Arian had been jailed for three years by that time and was facing a retrial on charges he conspired to fund the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The writer asserted that Al-Arian:

"(S)peaks, through his detainment, to America's ideological essence and present predicament, asking: are we as a nation to live in freedom or in fear? And asking impliedly, must Muslim Americans forfeit freedoms because of unfounded fears of their faith?"

By this time Al-Arian acknowledged, through his attorney, that he was a member if the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Evidence from his first trial, which ended with eight acquittals and a hung jury on nine counts, further showed Al-Arian on the Jihad's governing board. In April 2006, Al-Arian pled guilty to providing illegal goods and services to a terrorist organization and agreed to be deported upon his release.

"I'm Happy for Sami and his Family who has suffered tremendously over the years," Khan wrote in an internet post. "Sami was a personal jihad that we at AMC have been fighting for many years."

But then Khan offered some insight into what his political action is all about:

My point is it is very important to develop and further relationships in our branch of Governments.

All the screaming and Shouting the other organizations were displaying might be counter productive. Behind the scenes relationships pay huge dividends. So what is the next case that we at AMC can help with? (Emphasis added)

In an article on the AMC website last May, Khan described his first meeting with the candidate at a fundraiser last May:

"This was a great meeting for John and I to get to know each other. The passions and concerns that John feels for Americans and human beings around the world made an impact on me. We agreed that our country needs to regain its leadership on human rights. I look forward to getting to know John Edwards further."

Two of those chances to get to know Edwards better came in fundraisers Khan hosted on June 13 and September 4. But what Khan considers a human rights issue and what he considers terrorism is open to question. Al-Arian, an acknowledged member of a designated terrorist group, is worthy of "a personal jihad." When Israeli forces attacked Hizballah targets in Lebanon, he accused Israel of a "campaign of "terror" in Southern Lebanon, and "state terrorism."

In May 2004, Khan wrote, "Despite this country's claim to be a defender of human rights and freedom, President Bush and his administration have turned a blind eye on the terror being set loose by the Israeli government on Palestinians."

Another bizarre article posted to the AMC website at the time of the controversy over the Danish cartoons, called for a kind of global censorship to criminalize such publications everywhere:

"(W)hy is freedom of speech given the power to offend and destroy? Since when did self-expression supersede the value placed on life itself? And "It is entirely reasonable for Muslims, as represented by the OIC, to ask for a passage of resolutions within the United Nations, and legislation within respective countries the world over that would outlaw denigration of any faith and any religious figure."

Khan has pushed the idea of the victimization of American Muslims after 9/11. For example, at a May 2002 forum at Purdue University, Khan waved a speeding ticket claiming he had received it as a result of profiling. "I'm making an issue out of this. My sense of freedom has been lost since 9/11" He did not clarify how police radar was able to determine his religious affiliation. Khan never mentioned the ticket again, and presumably never contested it on the grounds of "profiling."

After a third place finish in New Hampshire, Edwards vowed to stay in the race through the Democratic National Convention. That gives him, and the voters, plenty of time to learn more about his inner circle.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk