[Libertarian] Arab American hopes to unseat Rep. Lantos

At a time when some Arab Americans and Muslims are lying low amid a perceived backlash in the wake of Sept. 11, Maad Abu-Ghazala is doing quite the opposite. He's running for Congress.

His opponent is Tom Lantos, one of Israel's strongest supporters and a Holocaust survivor who has been elected 11 times to represent the 12th District on the upper San Francisco Peninsula.

Abu-Ghazala, a 39-year-old software entrepreneur and attorney from Pacifica, was born in what was then part of Jordan.

He's running as a Libertarian. Normally, Libertarians are all but ignored by the major-party candidates, the mainstream media and political contributors. But, as Abu-Ghazala said, with their sharply contrasting backgrounds, this matchup is ``made for TV, almost.´´

That, combined with his determination to force a deeper discussion about why America finds itself fighting a war on terrorism, and whether Americans are giving up too much freedom in that war's prosecution, makes this contest anything but run-of-the-mill.

Lantos, who was in Washington this week as a busy Congress rushed to break for the holidays, did not return calls about the race.

Abu-Ghazala is a novice in electoral politics, but he's a member of the board of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. This week he spoke at a news conference to keep attention focused on the hundreds of people being held without charges by the FBI as part of the terrorism investigation. Abu-Ghazala said he was thinking of running even before Sept. 11, but the aftermath pushed him into the race despite the long odds and his controversial positions.

Shortly after the hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Abu-Ghazala said, he was appalled to hear that only 70 percent of Americans polled said the United States should make sure it knows who is responsible for the attack before striking back. It made him wonder about the other 30 percent of Americans.

``We just needed to bomb somebody,´´ he said. ``There was some level of that all over.´´

He also has watched in alarm as, in his view, constitutional protections and legal rights have been eroded ``with virtually no discussion.´´ As an attorney, Abu-Ghazala is especially outraged by Attorney General John Ashcroft´s announcement that the Justice Department would be monitoring communications between defense lawyers and certain terrorism suspects.

Abu-Ghazala's main foreign policy message -- that billions of dollars in annual U.S. aid to Israel should stop -- may win favor with voters who don't like foreign aid of any kind. But if polls are correct, he might not win many supporters with the centerpiece of his domestic agenda: the protection of civil liberties during the war on terrorism.

``Whether people like the message or not, I think it´s important that they hear it,´´ he said. Win or lose, Abu-Ghazala is doing something important, said Abdallah Al-Zuabi, national field director of the Arab-American Institute, which has sought to increase Arab-American participation in the political process for 15 years.

Recognition of the need for Arabs to get more involved in politics ``was a hundred times more after 9/11,´´ Al-Zuabi said, but at the same time many have felt too intimidated to speak out. ``To have Arab Americans running for Congress and talking about these issues will encourage other Arab Americans to do so also, so it has a positive effect.´´

Abu-Ghazala is taking a classic third-party approach and must know he can't win, said Jack Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont-McKenna College in Claremont. But his background could work for him.
``Even a more mainstream candidate with a lot of money wouldn´t stand much of a chance against Lantos,´´ Pitney said. ``He´s a respected Democratic incumbent in a Democratic district. The question is whether he can get a fair hearing for his point of view.´´

Lantos, who has a strong record on human rights, may be a friend of Israel, but that doesn't make him an enemy of Arabs or Arab Americans. In fact, when the FBI uncovered an alleged plan by a leader of the radical Jewish Defense League last week to bomb a Southern California mosque and an office of Arab American Rep. Darrell Issa, R-San Clemente, Lantos was at Issa's side to denounce the terrorist plot. Abu-Ghazala believes American policies in the Middle East -- of which Lantos is an influential architect -- are one of the root causes of rampant anti-Americanism. Those policies don't begin to justify the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, though, he said. Lantos holds a different view of the cause of the terrorist attacks.

``Osama bin Laden would have us believe that the United States´ continued presence in Saudi Arabia, our sanctions policy against Iraq or even our posture in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- a cause to which he only recently converted -- provoked and justified these terrorist acts. Let no one be deceived by the cynical and hateful rhetoric,´´ Lantos said at a congressional hearing Oct. 24.

``It is our open, democratic, inclusive, free way of life that is the true object of his hatred, he said. The terrorists hate America not for what we do, but for who we are."

Abu-Ghazala is a novice in electoral politics, but he's a member of the board of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. This week he spoke at a news conference to keep attention focused on the hundreds of people being held without charges by the FBI as part of the terrorism investigation. Abu-Ghazala said he was thinking of running even before Sept. 11, but the aftermath pushed him into the race despite the long odds and his controversial positions.
Shortly after the hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Abu-Ghazala said, he was appalled to hear that only 70 percent of Americans polled said the United States should make sure it knows who is responsible for the attack before striking back. It made him wonder about the other 30 percent of Americans.

``We just needed to bomb somebody,´´ he said. ``There was some level of that all over.´´

I really hate Arab bigots who cry out "defamation" to silence critics of Muslim terrorists, and I hate Libertopians who would have had us leave Afghanistan alone, and allow Osama to finish building his radioactive bombs in peace. And I really hate it when those Libertopians accuse the rest of us of being dimwitted and bloodthirsty for not agreeing with them.

Maybe I won't vote at all, I don't think Lantos needs my help...

I hate Libertopians who would have had us leave Afghanistan alone, and allow Osama to finish building his radioactive bombs in peace.

And I really hate it when those Libertopians accuse the rest of us of being dimwitted and bloodthirsty for not agreeing with them.

------------------------------------------

How weird. - You seem to have a large hate on for something I've never seen anyone here ever advocate. - Who are these 'libertopians'?

Two bits you don't have the guts to make any real accusations against real people, do you?

Vote for any damn socialist you want.

The LP is much more radical than most libertarians, or even most big-L Libertarians.

This is from their press release on September 12th:

The Libertarian Party condemns the vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There is no excuse for such savage acts. No legitimate political or religious ideology can justify the murder of thousands of innocent people. These actions, and the revulsion they cause to all decent people around the world, demonstrate in the starkest way possible that the initiation of force is never an appropriate way to settle political or social differences. The result of such violence is more hatred, more grieving relatives and friends, more tombstones -- and, ultimately, more violence. Libertarians unequivocally reject the initiation of force as a solution to the disagreements between people and between governments.
The Libertarian Party calls for justice to be meted out to the terrorists responsible for the attacks. However, we encourage the United States government to be sure that any response is appropriate and measured. Action should not be taken that will cause innocent people in other countries to be killed because of the actions of terrorists. Such a response would only continue the cycle of violence and revenge.

How were we supposed to attack Afghanistan without accidentally killing any innocent people? We couldn't have reasonably done it.

Ok, I accuse whoever authored the LP press release, and I guess Harry Browne. Right after 9/11, they weren't willing to support a war on the Taliban if that was the only reasonable way to get the Al Qaida members who were guilty.

I can't even think of any FReeper who espoused that view, it's so extreme. Like I said, it's not even held by most big-L Libertarians.

"Hard to know who to root for in this one."

It's not even close. One candidate stands for non-intervention and protection of (remaining) civil liberties. Essentially, returning America back to what it was before statists (both Democratic and Republican) chewed it away throughout the 20th century.

There is no question, if you care at all about returning America to its original ideals. Of course if you're a Republican/conservative statist...then it might be a tough call.

Libertarians...accept no substitute! (Except Ron Paul. He's fine. ;-))

"Right after 9/11, they weren't willing to support a war on the Taliban if that was the only reasonable way to get the Al Qaida members who were guilty."

Right after 9/11, it wasn't clear who had done the attack. The highjackers certainly didn't leave a manifesto saying who they were, what group they belonged to, and why they did the attack! Many of them used false identities, for crying out loud.

Further, there were indications by the Taliban that they might be willing to turn Osama bin Laden over for trial. They wanted to put on a lot of unacceptable conditions, which of course the U.S. was right to reject. But they also wanted evidence...which is quite reasonable, given that turning bin Laden over was a certain death sentence.

The U.S. never really provided any solid evidence...until the slam-dunk tape, of course. President Bush said, "We know he's guilty" but never provided evidence to show why "we" knew he was guilty. (The President certainly wasn't speaking for ME when he said that...I don't know people are guilty until I see convincing evidence. Preferably a "guilty" verdict in a court of law.)

"...but the aftermath pushed him into the race despite the long odds and his controversial positions."

This shows how pathetic and mindless our press is in America today.

What position of Abu-Ghazali is "controversial"? That he's appalled that 30% of Americans want to bomb someone without finding out first who is responsible?

Or...even worse...that Abu-Ghazali actually TELLS THE TRUTH about Osama bin Laden's motives? Osama bin Laden has made it 100% CRYSTAL CLEAR to anyone but a mindless twit why he sponsored the attacks on 9/11. Those reasons are:

1) American presence in Saudi Arabia (first and foremost), 2) sanctions/bombing of Iraq, and 3) U.S. military aid to Israel.

Tom Lantos tells an absolutely BLATANT LIE...that Osama bin Laden attacked us because of our "open, democratic, inclusive" blah blah blah blah...and the reporter doesn't even QUESTION it! Despite the fact that Osama bin Laden ALWAYS says exactly why he attacks America (see 3 reasons above)! Pathetic.

A Muslim who believes in the Koran and Islamic law cannot believe in personal freedoms. They don't believe in separation of church and state, the religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic law regulates all public and private behavior including personal hygiene, diet, sexual conduct, and child rearing. If he's really a Libertarian, then he doesn't believe in the Koran or Islam.

"A Muslim who believes in the Koran and Islamic law cannot believe in personal freedoms. They don't believe in separation of church and state, the religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic law regulates all public and private behavior including personal hygiene, diet, sexual conduct, and child rearing."

I don't know much about the Koran (or Islamic law, for that matter). But my understanding of Islam is that everything is supposed to be voluntary. In other words, my understanding of the Koran is that one can believe in the Koran, and still think that everything that it teaches should be followed--or not followed--voluntarily.

What in the world gave you the idea that Mr. Abu-Ghazali wants to institute Islamic law, by the way?

"If he's really a Libertarian, then he doesn't believe in the Koran or Islam."

Based on what *I* know of the Koran and Islam--which I admit is limited--I don't think this statement is true.

Based on what I know of Islamic law, I agree completely agree that Islamic law is completely incompatible with liberarianism. Just as the laws of the United States, instituted by Republicans and Democrats, are completely incompatible with libertarianism! But, as I wrote before, what gives you the idea that Mr. Abu-Ghazali wants to institute Islamic law?

Mark (Libertarian)

I don't see many Islamic countries where tolerance for others is permitted or individual freedom is allowed at all. The Koran is quite specific on what is to be done with Christians and Jews and other infidels. The Koran directs Muslims to place a tax on Christians. Only one majority Muslim country has any tolerance at all ---Turkey and only because the government controls Islam.

I just don't see how someone can believe in the Koran and it's exact opposite at the same time. I think Christians, Jews, and atheists can be libertarians because there is a concept of separation of Church and State in those religions. The US Constitution was designed by people from Christian countries and that wasn't accidental because only Judeo-Christian beliefs would led to the belief in rights given to man by their Creator.

I just don't see how someone can believe in the Koran and it's exact opposite at the same time.

--- I've seen that to a certain extent all of us hold contradicting views on politics/religion. That's what 'faith' vs reason is all about, right?

I think Christians, Jews, and atheists can be libertarians because there is a concept of separation of Church and State in those religions.

--- As Mark mentioned above, there does appear to be some 'voluntary' tradition in accepting islam. Maybe this guy believes that way? Are you claiming he can not?

The US Constitution was designed by people from Christian countries and that wasn't accidental because only Judeo-Christian beliefs would led to the belief in rights given to man by their Creator.

I think you're wrong on that .
Rights are self evident in our free will, which everyone has, regardless of their religious beliefs, or the lack of them.

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.