Posted on 01/28/2006 11:52:44 AM PST by UnklGene
Mark Steyn: Are We Serious? -
Abu Hamza is the most famous of Britain’s many incendiary imams, a household name thanks to the tabloids’ anointing him as “Hooky” — he lost his hands in a, um, “accident” in Afghanistan a few years back. Currently on trial in London for nine counts of soliciting to murder plus various other charges, he’s retained the services of the eminent Queen’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald opened the case for the defense by arguing, according to the Daily Telegraph, that “Hamza was urging his followers not to murder British people but to fight in holy wars where Muslims were being killed in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Palestine. Asked if he had ever intended to urge or incite murder, Hamza replied: ‘In the context of murder, no. In the context of fighting, yes.’”
Hmm. Hamza wants to see a Caliph installed in Downing Street and to have Muslims “control the whole Earth.”
And, of course, wanting Muslims to control the whole Earth is not against the law, nor, as his counsel argued, is advocating the more robust methods of bringing it about. As the Times of London reported: “Edward Fitzgerald, QC, for the defence, said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion. He said that the Crown case against the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque was ‘simplistic in the extreme.’ He added: ‘It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.’”
Well, it’s ingenious, and who’s to say it won’t work? If the Koran permit, you must acquit. To convict would be multiculturally disrespectful: If the holy book of the religion of peace recommends killing infidels, who are we to judge?
‘Hooky’ has his day Odd Andersen/AFP
In other courtroom news, Nick Griffin, leader of the highly non-multicultural British National party, is also on trial, charged with the crime of “using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred” — and, unlike Hamza, he’s unable to avail himself of the But-I-got-it-straight-from-the-Koran defense. The jury was sternly reminded that its role is not to consider the truth or otherwise of Griffin’s remarks: The criminality thereof is not mitigated by factual accuracy. One of the offending observations is this, made at a meeting in Leeds, a year before the July 7 bombings: “We all know that sooner or later there’s going to be Islamic terrorists letting off bombs in major cities, and it might not be London, it could just as easily be the White Rose Centre” — which is in Leeds. Griffin ventured that the bombers would prove to be asylum seekers or second-generation Pakistanis “living somewhere like Bradford.”
Close enough. Well, closer than MI5 got. Three of the four July 7 bombers were, in fact, second-generation Pakistanis from Leeds — a mere stone’s throw or bomb blast from where Griffin was speaking. Tony Blair has for years been predicting terrorist devastation raining down on Britain, but very shrewdly he usually avoids hazarding too specific a guess at the likely identity of the perpetrators — which is why he’s not on trial and Nick Griffin is.
Go back four years. On September 11, the Bush administration had to choose whether to regard the events of that morning as a matter for law enforcement or an act of war. At one o’clock that afternoon, as the Pentagon still burned and after he’d helped pull the injured from the rubble, Donald Rumsfeld told the president, “This is not a criminal action. This is war.”
That’s still the distinction that matters: Part of the reason John Kerry lost in 2004 and why the Democrats will lose again this November is that they view this business as a law-enforcement matter: all warrants and due process. And, as we see in almost every case that comes up, to fight the jihad in the courtroom means you’ll lose.
Imagine if, during the London Blitz, you’d had Germans with British passports giving speeches advocating the United Kingdom’s incorporation within the Third Reich and demanding the Swastika fly over Buckingham Palace and you had to prosecute them individually and most Nazis were acquitted on technicalities but a few got 18-months-to-two-years. To be sure, one can argue (as many British and Americans do) that the jihad does not pose the same kind of existential threat, but at what point do you cross the line? Three hundred dead in a Tube blast? Six thousand in a skyscraper bombing? Why aren’t the dead of September 11 and July 7 already enough?
There are local factors at play in these court cases and the defendants know them very well. Under onerous British reporting restrictions, I can’t even write about the Hamza case in a Fleet Street paper lest it prejudice his trial. In cases like that of, say, Sami-al Arian or Zac Moussaoui, you’re free to talk about them but the nature of the U.S. justice system means there are years and years between the arrest and even the prospect of justice. Thus, the net effect in both jurisdictions is to limit or defer public awareness of these men’s activities.
A court of law is not meant to be a field of battle, and the enemy should not be upgraded to a defendant. The question is not “Why do they hate us?” but “Why do they despise us?” And putting Abu Hamza in the dock at the Old Bailey is a good example why.
The only "war" the Dems are willing to fight no-holds-barred is against...the GOP.
I found the answer the same place Zarqawi and hundreds of millions of other people found it ....in the Koran. - tom
That's Desert Storm. If we take France, that'll be Dessert Storm. ;^)
:-)Good catch. Fingers go faster than the brain sometimes.
So would it be true to say that Hamza is the "Cleric of the Edward Fitzgerald"?
If a foreign state was actively trying to conquer us we would consider it a declaration of war and fight back.
I was surprised during the election (and still am) that John Kerry's book was never made into a bigger deal, by both sides. His 1998 book "The New War" shows an appalling naivete on the subject of terrorism that still appears to guide him, and the democrats in general, even today. They continue to see it as a criminal matter, not a military matter.
AARRGH!
Great, the rest of the day I'll be hearing Gordon Lightfoot singing The Wreck Of The Edmund Fitzgerald". Thank ya, thank ya very much.
"If a foreign state was actively trying to conquer us we would consider it a declaration of war and fight back."
So there is no legal difference between telling a lie and telling the truth, if someone might object. What kind of law is that?
Where does Steyn come up with these?
A court of law is not meant to be a field of battle, and the enemy should not be upgraded to a defendant.
The man is a genius!
It would take a new Lewis G. Carroll to answer that question. Here's an example:;
`There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; `this paper has just been picked up.'
`What's in it?' said the Queen.
`I haven't opened it yet, said the White Rabbit, `but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to--to somebody.'
`It must have been that,' said the King, `unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'
`Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.
`It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; `in fact, there's nothing written on the outside.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added `It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'
`Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.
`No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, `and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)
`He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
`Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, `I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'
`If you didn't sign it,' said the King, `that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'
There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.
`That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.
Criminal matter...and liberals don't imprison criminals, they rehabilitate them.
"Now Abu, blowing people up is not nice behavior. Can you say, "not nice behavior? Thank you! You can go home now."
Sorry, former Minnesotan. Couldn't resist.
Lol!
Hey. Stop talking about my love life.
BTTT
Exactly what Klintoon felt about WTC1 in 1993!!
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.