Doc's Talk: How Do You Plead, Guilty or Not Guilty? ‘I Plead Muslim!’

Monday, March 08, 2010

How Do You Plead, Guilty or Not Guilty? ‘I Plead Muslim!’

Gadi Adelman

"She was strong, beautiful, really caring, she was always willing to help people." This was the description of Noor Almaleki (pictured above) according to one of her co-workers from the Applebee’s in Glendale, Arizona. Her caring came to end on October 20, 2009 when her own father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki ran her down with his Jeep Cherokee. Noor fought for her life until Monday November 2, 2009, when she succumbed and died from her injuries. Noor was only 20 years old. Her father didn’t just run over Noor; at the time he ran her down, she was walking in a parking lot with her fiancé’s mother, Amal Edan Khalaf. The 43-year-old Amal Edan Khalaf was seriously injured.

This tragic story made national headlines when it was revealed that the girl’s father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, deliberately targeted his daughter and attacked her for becoming too “Westernized.”

Nicole Furugia worked with Noor at Applebee's, and stayed in touch with her until her death.

But her employment there, like her life, was short lived. "She came in all frantic one day and asked me to cover her shift because her father found out where she worked," said Furugia. "She had to quit her job, and she had to move."

"She was a good person, and moral," according to Noor's friend Sharlee Caudle. "Most parents would be glad to have a child like that." Her friends described her as an aspiring model and actress, working and going to school.

I spoke with her former manager on the telephone, Chad Wilcoxon, and he told me “that Noor had to quit due to her dad,” she called one day and said “I have to quit due to family reasons.” He told me that “her death affected everyone here.” As we spoke, he explained, “I only worked with her for one month. I didn’t even know she was Iraqi.”

I wanted to get to know Noor before writing this story; she had pages on Facebook and MySpace. She had lots of friends. She posted details about herself; she posted a photo on a Web site for aspiring models and actresses. She lived with her boyfriend and his mother. But as I worked to track down people who knew her, I came upon some interesting twists to this story that I had not heard before.

Some friends of Noor said that her father had taken her to Iraq and told her they were visiting relatives. Once there, he married her off and left her to fend for herself. Noor then had to find enough money to make her way back to America and, once here, she moved in with the fiancé she loved. Furugia said she had gone with Noor to look into getting a restraining order against her father. "She was very determined on getting it, she was scared."

Family members told police that the father was upset that his daughter failed to live by traditional Muslim values, and prosecutors have also said Almaleki has admitted killing his daughter because she disgraced the family by not following traditional Iraqi or Muslim values. Faleh Hassan Almaleki was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. Police said Almaleki fled the country after the attack, driving to Mexico and later taking a plane to London. He was detained by British authorities and extradited back to the United States.

Speaking before a Maricopa County judge, county prosecutor Stephanie Low said Almaleki has admitted purposefully running down his daughter. Low indicated that Mr. Almaleki does not deny that his actions were intended to harm and even kill Noor:

“By his own admission, this was an intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family,” Low said. “This was an attempt at an honor killing.”

Arizona, like 35 other states, currently has the death penalty and there are 133 people on death row. Obviously, a heinous crime such as one murdering one’s own child with premeditation would result in the death penalty if found guilty. But not in this case, no:the decision not to seek the death penalty was taken after Almaleki's attorney, Billy Little, a public defender, asked the judge to take special precautions to ensure that the County and Attorney's Office wouldn't wrongly seek the death penalty because…Almaleki is a Muslim.

Further, Little requested that the office make public the process it uses to determine whether to seek capital punishment. "An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs," Little wrote, referring to County Attorney Andrew Thomas' Christian faith.

Laura Reckart, a county prosecutor, responded that Little's concern about the "supposed bias" of the office's death penalty review process was "without legitimate factual or legal basis." She wrote that the state can seek the death penalty for any person convicted of first-degree murder if it can prove the existence of at least one aggravating factor, not because of religion.

However, the debate stopped there. On February 16th, Reckart filed a motion indicating prosecutors would not seek the death penalty. Mike Scerbo, a spokesman for the County Attorney's Office, issued the following statement on February 19th:

"The defendant is charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison. As is in all first degree murder cases, the decision on whether to seek the death penalty is made on a case by case basis. Cultural considerations played no part in the decision not to seek the death penalty." In other words, the clear message is this: this was an “honor killing,” this was religiously motivated and we as Americans have to take this into consideration and, as such, we should remove the death penalty from the table in such cases.

In my previous article “One Nation under Allah” I touched on this very subject of Sharia law. I explained that “the United Nations estimates that as many as 5,000 women are murdered in such honor killings each year for offenses like immodesty or refusing an arranged marriage…

The situation here is not whether Faleh Hassan Almaleki deserves the death penalty. It is totally irrelevant which side of the death penalty argument you advocate. This decision should concern each and every one of us because of the big picture. By removing the death penalty from this case, Maricopa County is setting a precedent that will have ramifications far reaching and far beyond the death penalty. This is only the beginning of a slippery slope that none of us should allow.

America has a Constitution, we have laws and we have freedoms. None of these laws are specific to only certain citizens; they apply to all of us, or at least that was the way our Founding Fathers envisioned it. When we as a nation start to pick and choose certain rules for certain people or religions or cultures, where does it end? Would it come as a surprise if someone charged with domestic violence or wife battery gets a lesser charge because he is a Muslim? It is only a matter of time before that will happen, now that this precedent has been set.

While Noor was fighting for her life her brother, Peter-Ali Almaleki, said that he loved his sister and that should she not have to be suffering from her injuries. But he added that the family lives by different cultural values. "One thing to one culture doesn't make sense to another culture," he added. So because "one thing to one culture doesn't make sense to another culture,” should we allow the laws, the rules and our values to be changed to align with another culture’s values, no matter what is enshrined in our Constitution?

I noticed during my research that one blogger wrote, "If you want to murder somebody in America, be sure to convert to Islam first." I think that sentence speaks volumes.

Here is what I propose: like I always say, speak up and do something about it. Our future generations will suffer at the hands of killers like Almaleki and the courts who will protect them simply with pseudo-Islamic Sharia law. Share your feelings with Maricopa County.

Mr. Billy Little
Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office
620 W Jackson Street, Suite 4015, Phoenix AZ 85003
Phone: 602-506-2200 Fax: 602-506-1865

Maricopa County Attorney's office 602-506-3411

I dedicate this article to Noor Almaleki and to the hundreds of thousands of other women who have died in the name of “honor.”

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He is currently writing his first book, "Terrorism; Understanding the Threat". He can be reached through his website http://gadiadelman.com.

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