Posted on 11/07/2004 6:00:12 PM PST by Stoat
Special Dispatch Series - No. 812 | |
November 8, 2004 | No.812 |
Arab Liberals Petition the U.N. to Establish an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Terrorists On October 24, 2004, the liberal Arab websites www.elaph.com and www.metransparent.com published a manifesto written by Arab liberals, in which they petition the U.N. to establish an international tribunal which would prosecute terrorists, as well as people and institutions, primarily religious clerics, that incite terrorism.(1)
The idea to petition the U.N. with this request was raised by the Jordanian writer and researcher Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi in early September 2004, in response to the fatwa issued by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi - one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood movement and one of the most important religious authorities in Islamist circles - which called for the abduction and killing of U.S. citizens in Iraq.(2) The idea was developed and written up by Al-Nabulsi, Tunisian intellectual Al-'Afif Al-Akhdhar, and former Iraqi Minister of Planning Dr. Jawad Hashem. During the first 24 hours since the manifesto was published on the Internet, it was signed by approximately 2,000 people worldwide, including intellectuals, authors, poets, and journalists. The authors of the manifesto hope that within a week the number of signatures will reach 10,000, at which point it will be presented to the U.N.(3) The following are excerpts from the original English translation of the manifesto, as published by the authors: Fatwas Are a Primary Cause of Terrorism "Their Excellencies President and members of the UN-Security Council - His Excellency, The Secretary-General of the U.N.: "On October 8, 2004, the UNSC unanimously adopted Resolution 1566 (2004) condemning all terrorist acts 'as one of the most serious threats to peace and international stability.' In reaffirming its Resolutions 1267 of October 15, 1999; and 1373 of September 28, 2001; as well as its other resolutions concerning threats to international peace and security caused by terrorism; and in recalling its Resolution 1540 (2004) of April 28, 2004; Resolution 1566 decides: "...To establish a working group consisted of all members of the Security Council to consider and submit recommendations to the Council on practical measures to be imposed upon individuals, groups, or entities involved in or associated with terrorist activities ... including more effective procedures considered to be appropriate for bringing them to justice through prosecution or extradition, freezing of their financial assets, preventing their movement through the territories of Member States, preventing supply to them of all types of arms and related material, and on the procedures for implementing these measures. "As you are deliberating to recommend practical measures to be imposed on individuals, groups, or entities involved in or associated with terrorist activities pursuant to Resolution 1566, we, the signatories of this letter, a group of Arab and Muslim liberals, would like to draw your attention to an extremely dangerous source of terrorism. This source is the purported religious pronouncements fatwas issued by some psychotic members of dogmatic Muslims encouraging the commission of terrorist acts in the name of and under the banner of Islam. "It is not enough for the Security Council to adopt resolutions 'condemning' terrorism. What will be more effective is the establishment of an International Tribunal affiliated to the UN organization for the prosecution of individuals, groups, or entities involved, directly or indirectly, with terrorist activities including, but not limited to, fatwas issued by religious clerics in the name of Islam calling upon Muslims to commit terrorist acts. "By these fatwas all terrorists have died, or will die, fully convinced that they will immediately enter Paradise. Of course, we are not excluding other causes for committing terrorist acts, such as the ticking-bomb of population explosion with its resultant illiteracy, poverty, unemployment, backwardness in education systems, reactionary religious teaching, and, above all, living under dictatorial systems of governments in almost all Arab countries. But despite the above causes, certain religious fatwas remain the pivotal cause of terrorist acts - fatwas which clothe such terrorist acts with legitimacy as being one of the sacred tenets of Muslim faith." "We can provide you with an exhaustive lists of fatwas which incite terrorist acts, but the following few may suffice: * "When the presiding judge of the Egyptian Court asked Sheikh Mohamed Al-Ghazali (a leader in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement) to opine about the murder of Faraj Foda (an Egyptian secular intellectual) in 1992, Sheikh Al-Ghazali's opinion was, 'The killing of Faraj Foda was in fact the implementation of the punishment against an apostate which the imam (the state) has failed to implement (undertake).' When the defendant heard Al-Ghazali's opinion he shouted, 'Now I will die with a clear conscience (for murdering Mr. Foda).' * "On February 13, 2002, the London-based Al-Hayat newspapers published a fatwa issued by the Saudi Sheikh Ali Bin Khodair Al-Khodhari approving and condoning Al-Qa'ida's 9/11 terrorist acts in New York and Washington. In his fatwa, the Sheikh said, 'It is astonishing to mourn the [American] victims as being innocents. Those victims may be classified as infidel Americans which do not deserve being mourned, because each American, as to his relation to American government, is a warrior, or supporter, in money or opinion. It is legitimate to kill all of them as combatant; or non-combatant, such as the old, the blind, or non-Muslims...' * "On February 13, 2002, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper also published another fatwa issued by the Saudi Sheikh Safar Bin Abdulrahman Al-Hawali in which he described the 9/11 attacks as an equivalent given in return for President Clinton missile attack on Al-Qa'ida's training camps after the terrorists attach on the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. He went on to condone the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon describing them as centers for money laundering, devil's nest, spying cell, and a mafia retreat. * "The fatwa issued by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi permitting the killing of 'fetuses' (unborn) Jews, because (according to him) when Jews are born and grown-up they will join the Israeli army. Furthermore, on September 3, 2004, (at the Egyptian Journalist Union) Al-Qardhawi issued a fatwa to kill all American civilians working in Iraq. * "And on July 3, 2004, he issued another fatwa (published in Al-Ahram Al-Arabi) permitting the killing of Muslim intellectuals as being apostates, claiming that Islam justify the killing of such apostates. The fatwa issued by Rashid Al-Ghannoushi (Tunisian) according to which he permits killing all civilians in Israel, because (according to his fatwa) 'these are no civilians in Israel. The population males, females, and children is the army reserve soldiers, thus could be killed." 'Fatwas Issued by the Extremist Muslims Clerics Encourage the Commission of Terrorist Acts' "As it is difficult, if not impossible, to prosecute these extremists in their native Arab or Islamic countries, they continue to issue and publish their fatwas inciting acts of terror under the false umbrella of Islam. As the fatwas issued by the extremist Muslims clerics encourage the commission of terrorist acts to provoke a state of terror, and, due to the importance of combating terrorism as a matter of urgency, we, the signatories of this letter, respectfully submit to your excellencies and to the Working Group Constituted pursuant to Article-9 of Resolution 1566 to create an International Tribunal to prosecute all terrorists, whether individuals, groups, or entities, including individuals who incite terrorism through the issuance of fatwas in the name of religion." Endnotes: |
Oh great, give it to the UN, what a joke - I vote for a well trained team of assassins instead, like the SEALS.
[yawn]
Anybody know how the Giants did today?
There is a world of difference between our liberals and theirs. Their liberals would prosecute terrorists, ours would prosecute American servicemembers.
Go figure?
You're right of course, and that's the problem...the UN will likely jump at this opportunity to couch terrorism as a legal and law enforcement matter, which will essentially mean that terrorists and terror-supporting states will get a free ride, and carte blanche from the UN. Far from being a yawner, this will be a problem if it gains traction.
I agree about the differences between their 'liberals' and ours, but I would actually prefer it if prosecution were in fact left up to their liberals and not the UN. With the UN involved, terrorists and terror states will have even more of a friend than they do now.
"religious clerics" hmmm... can there be any non-religious ones? It is like "wet water" or "godless atheism".
At the same time, I wonder just what kind of bind this places the UN in; it could make for a very uncomfortable situation for them.
To issue a fatwa the cleric, immam, ayatollah or whatever must find in the koran and hadith a precedent from the life and teachings of mohammed.
Are they asking the UN to ban the koran and hadith?
You should find this interesting.
True, although my guess is that the UN would welcome an involvement at this level for a number of reasons...among them: an opportunity to expand the size of their organization dramatically and add numerous layers of bureaucracy, it will provide a foil to appease terror-sponsoring states, because prosecutions can be intentionally mired in litigation for decades, if they so desire. It takes heat away from Security Council resolutions which have been proven to be so incredibly ineffective....they only work when the U.S. takes them seriously. I am not so sure that this would put these 'liberal arabs' in the crosshairs of terrorists because it actaully helps their cause on the international stage....it has the tendency to legitimize their actions as merely a 'criminal' offense not so much removed from international car theft.
Good point! If Americans wish to know how to deal with these Islamic militants, just watch the Islamic moderates fed up with the defilement of their religion.
Is this tribunal petition what is meant by that article I posted referencing impeachment charges just needing to be brought to the floor???
From the article:
>>>Well, impeachment itself may be impossible- under 'traditional' paradigms but bringing up impeachment charges is not. All this takes is one brave Congressman or woman to put it on the floor.<<<
Posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1272251/posts
Left Activists Plans to Attempt a Bush Impeachment
In an honest proceeding I agree that this might put the UN in a difficult position. However, considering the UN involvement I would suggest that they would probably specify that the tribunal bend to 'prevailing religious authority' or some such nonsense. It is indeed an interesting quandry but I have great faith in the U.N.'s ability to appease everyone while accomplishing nothing and perpetuating pain,suffering and murder all over the world, especially when the target is the US or Israel. Do I seem cynical? :-)
"...do I seem cynical?"
Not to me. My impression is that the UN is the greatest collection of do-nothings on the planet. What terrifies me is how much power they have. Read the list of what the UN has its snout into:
http://www.unsystem.org/
Gives me nightmares.
I recall news reports of the absolute terror in the eyes of some of Saddam's henchmen when they were brought before judges in the newly-freed Iraq....they knew that they weren't dealing with pantywaisted NYU / ACLU lawyers and their time to meet Allah....in a most painful manner....was near. If Saddam's trial can be prevented from becoming a circus, it will be very cathartic for the Iraqi people, I think.
>>>>I recall news reports of the absolute terror in the eyes of some of Saddam's henchmen when they were brought before judges in the newly-freed Iraq
Where were these reports??? I would love to see them! Did yjey get posted here?
>>>yjey = they
Sorry, was changing a printer cartridge while typing ;)
I would suggest that a comparison with an impeachment proceeding against a sitting President of the United States is a different matter because under U.S. law we have substantial legal checks and balances (oftentimes too many, but that's a subject for another thread). As an example, in the Clinton impeachment there was clear violation of the law as well as substantial legal precedent. Even given that, we were able to get him impeached (and disbarred) but we still weren't able to kick the bum out. In the case of President Bush, there has been no violation of any U.S. law, so they don't even get to square one with an imeachment proceeding. Kofi "embarrassment to humanity" Annan has accused the US of waging an 'illegal' war in Iraq, but he seems to forget the UN Resolution 1441. There's no US legal violation because Congress authorized the President to go to war. This is something that might employ a few Leftist lawyers for a while and provide Al Franken with a few talking points but I think that in reality it's a non-starter as a practical matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.