On a lighter note: if the Homeland Defence Agency thinks that you may know something, there are those on FR who would support your being arrested and tortured for the information. (Derschowicz[sp?] seems to support this idea too.) They may simply refuse to believe that you are not withholding (two h's in a row) evidence.
Actually, in all the prior threads - I've pointed out that Dr. Malik has been in the U.S. since the 70's or so and is long established here. I seem to recall that he also spoke out strongly against the terrorism.
That being the case, he is probably not a party to the terrorists. However, as head of the Islamic Center of Central NJ and being from Pakistan and having made it as a doctor here ... we wonder if a newcomer to the country living in that area, attending that mosque and wanting to become a doctor ... may have asked him for a job referral or such.
I don't see anything mean-spirited at all about those observations...
Nope. There is nothing libelous there. The doctor wasn't accused of anything remotely defamatory.
At the very worst, it could be read that Malik was the acquaintance of a terrorist. That is not defamatory. Any of us could be an acquaintance of a terrorist and nobody can draw any negative conclusion from that.
I am an acquaintance of Jimmy Carter. Can anyone properly infer anything from that?
In addition, Malik is a "public figure" which pretty much makes him fair game for this sort of stuff, anyhow. But it's not necessary to get into the analysis of what that means because there's no defamation which must be proven first.
BTW, when is truth NOT a defense to a charge of libel?