Doc's Talk: The Price of CAIR's "Cooperation"

Saturday, March 20, 2010

The Price of CAIR's "Cooperation"

IPT News
March 19, 2010

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1867/the-price-of-cairs-cooperation

Even when it does something right, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) finds a way to turn it into a confrontation with federal law enforcement. Since helping connect the families of five young Muslim men missing from the D.C.-area to law enforcement, the group has postured itself as an asset in the fight against extremism. CAIR's Executive Director Nihad Awad even described the "disturbing" farewell video the group's ringleader, Ramy Zamzam, left behind.

It "made references to the ongoing conflict in the world, and that young Muslims have to do something," Awad told reporters in December.

Somehow, Awad believes the good deed of advising relatives to go to the FBI gives him the power to demand that the five suspected terrorists be brought back to the United States and set free with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If that doesn't happen, he has said repeatedly, there could be consequences.

As Awad said:

"Charging them and throwing them in jail is not the solution….The government has to show some appreciation for the actions of the parents and the community. That will encourage other families to come forward."

This is lunacy, as any review of the case shows.

The five young men, Zamzam, Umar Farooq, Waqar Khan, Amin Yemer, and Ahmad Mimmi, all lived within blocks of one another in Alexandria, Virginia. Last year, they contacted a Taliban recruiter via YouTube and exchanged communications in a draft email folder in a Yahoo account. After months of watching radical videos on the Internet, the men left Washington on November 28, leaving behind a videotape for relatives that showed scenes of American casualties and a speech by one of them talking about the need to defend Muslims.

Although their parents apparently did not know where their children had gone, they contacted the authorities to report them missing. By all accounts, they have continued to cooperate. As much as they deserve praise for these actions, it is important to remember that this is something that any parent would do upon learning of their kids' disappearance.

While the parents were trying to work with authorities to locate their children, the Zamzam Five were attempting to gain terrorist training in Pakistan.

Authorities say that the men traveled to Hyderabad, Pakistan. There, they were denied entry into militant training camps operated by Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e Tayyiba, both designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. They were eventually arrested on December 8, at the family home of Khalid Farooq Chaudhry, the father of one of the men.

After months of investigation, in both the United States and Pakistan, on March 17, the men were formally charged in a Pakistani anti-terrorism court in Sargodha. Among the charged offenses are conspiracy to commit terrorism in Pakistan and plotting attacks against a friendly country, both of which could result in life sentences. The men have pled not guilty and the expected six-month trial is set to begin on March 31.

Although U.S. authorities have not yet said whether they intend to seek extradition of the men to stand trial here, it remains a possibility that they may one day face other charges in America. Should they return to the United States, CAIR would like to see them set free. Such a step would be an extraordinary departure from both established principles and common sense.

While it axiomatic that federal prosecutors have broad discretion to decide what charges to bring, when to bring them, and where to bring them, it is highly unlikely that anybody in the Justice Department would find the cooperation of parents in locating their missing children to be a compelling enough justification to forego prosecution of suspected terrorists. Rather, the cooperation of family members should be given the same weight as it is normally given in criminal investigations—a mitigating factor to be considered during the sentencing phase of a trial. In at least two high-profile cases of domestic terrorism, the Justice Department took just that step.

From 1978 to 1995, Ted Kaczynski sent 16 bombs to targets including universities and airlines, killing three and injuring 23. After an FBI investigation spanning nearly two decades, the "Unabomber" wasn't caught until his brother tipped off authorities. Despite the cooperation of a family member, a federal grand jury indicted Kaczynski in April 1996 on 10 counts of illegally transporting, mailing, and using bombs. Although the Unabomber eventually pled guilty in exchange for a sentence of life in prison, his brother David was in negotiations with federal prosecutors to ensure that his cooperation would be considered as a mitigating factor as sentencing.

Similarly, Stephen John Jordi, a religious fundamentalist who was accused of plotting to fire bomb abortion clinics, churches, and gay bars, was turned in to authorities by relatives. Rather than demand that he not be prosecuted, his family spoke at Jordi's sentencing hearing, and he received the guidelines-minimum of five years.

CAIR is either willfully ignorant of these precedents or believes that this case is special. Yet Awad repeated his argument for leniency this week, hinting at trouble down the road if their expectations are not met:

"I think the outcome of this trial will determine how parents in the future will interact with the government."

Think about that. You find a farewell video from your son, who disappeared days ago. You have reason to believe he is in league with people bent on violence. What options do you, as a parent, have? Either go to the authorities in the hope they can find your child before it is too late, or roll the dice and hope the kid changes his mind and makes his way home.

Awad seems to be saying parents may opt to gamble on their children's lives. At the least, he suggests their cooperation is contingent upon a quid-pro-quo.

This takes CAIR's repeated exhortations to not cooperate with law enforcement authorities to a new extreme.

The suggestion that the only reasonable response to the cooperation of family members is a "get out of jail free" card is preposterous. Even if that were true, however, it's certainly a dangerous game of chicken in which CAIR suggests engaging.

If the Zamzam Five ever make it back to the United States, the crimes of which they have been suspected are simply too serious to be brushed under the carpet. They offered support to terrorist groups and conspired to kill American troops. According to authorities in Pakistan, police recovered maps of nuclear power plants and air force bases, the intended targets of the men. Even the group's alleged leader, Ramy Zamzam, has not denied their ultimate objective: "we are not terrorists…we are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism."

The cooperation of their parents should be taken into account as a mitigating factor when they are brought to justice, but in no way should it immunize the men from prosecution.

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