From Andrew McCarthy, the National Review journalist and attorney who led the team that convicted Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh. "In essence, we prosecuted him for inciting terrorism"
The word incomprehensible does not do justice to the FBIs conclusion that jihadist saboteur Nidal Hasans numerous communications with jihadist imam Anwar al-Awlaki were either (a) not significant enough to warrant further investigation or (b) significant but immune from further investigation on First Amendment grounds.
The first possibility would not pass the laugh test if this were a laughing matter. Anonymous government officials have suggested that the substance of the conversations was innocuous. That remains to be seen we cant know until we learn exactly what was said, how it was acted on, who else may have been in the loop, and so on.
But even if you buy the innocent-substance theory (I dont), the occurrence of the communications between an Islamist infiltrator in our armed forces and a known al-Qaeda recruiter who ministered to some of the 9/11 hijackers could not be more significant. The mere circumstances were more than enough to turn up the investigative heat.
Thats so palpable that we must worry that about the second possibility: That the FBI and the Justice Department have convinced themselves that the Constitution really is a suicide pact that a mainstream construction of Islam, calling for our demise as a free people, is somehow insulated from inquiry because we dont want to confront the stubborn fact that Islamist terror is instigated by Islamic doctrine.
Journalism in the last week has been a feast of fables about Islam, libels about military culture, and gut-wrenching accounts of sorrow and heroism. But the most disturbing thing Ive read is Ron Kesslers Newsmax column. It addressed little not already known about the mass murder, but Ron has singularly good sources in the FBI. He provides a window into Bureau thinking that makes the mind reel.
Besides grossly low-balling the number of U.S. mosques that propagate Islamist ideology the Feebs say its about 10 percent of 2,000 mosques; its actually about six to eight times that amount a top FBI counterterrorism official told Kessler:
"Those who actively support extremist causes, say America is evil and deserves what it gets, and celebrate the death of soldiers, know they may come to our attention. So they dont do it as openly now . . . . There was much more of that [before 9/11] because all of it was considered by Justice Department guidelines to be purely protected speech. We do not have incitement laws in America, but once an imam facilitates someone else taking action, he has crossed the line into material support and becomes our business."
Where to begin? Almost 17 years ago, after the Trade Center was bombed, the Justice Department did not believe a Muslim cleric had to cross the line into material support before he became the FBIs business. Indeed, there were no material support laws until 1996. In 1995, as detailed in Willful Blindness, I led the team that convicted Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh. In essence, we prosecuted him for inciting terrorism the thing the senior official tells Kessler isnt a crime.
Specifically, the Blind Sheikh was convicted of (among other things) soliciting an attack against a U.S. military installation (like Hasan just committed) and soliciting the murder of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
Solicitation is still a federal crime and theres no requirement that the incitement actually lead to a terrorist act.
Moreover, even before anyone in America ever heard of al-Qaeda even before there was a 9/11, or bombings of Khobar Towers, the U.S. embassies in eastern Africa, and the U.S.S. Cole some of us realized that terrorists fueled by viscerally anti-American Islamist ideology, were at war with the United States. And guess what? Theres a statute for that, too: The Civil Warera seditious-conspiracy law makes the waging of such a terror campaign a 20-year felony. And theres no carve-out for imams.
How was the Blind Sheikh convicted? By presenting to the jury his fiery sermons and private meetings with the faithful, often in mosques where he urged barbarous strikes against America, swaddled in accurate quotations of the Koran and other Muslim scripture. Of course, he claimed that such exhortations were protected speech. That is, he made exactly the same arguments the Islamist Left has spent the last eight years beating into the country, including into the Justice Department and the FBI. But back in 1995, those arguments were seen for the nonsense that they were.
There is no bar to the use of speech as evidence. The First Amendment generally prohibits the criminalization of speech itself i.e., the act of communicating. But settled law holds that when prosecutors use your speech to prove crimes, there is no First Amendment violation. When the mafia boss tells the button-man Whack him! he doesn't get to lodge a First Amendment objection to the introduction of that statement at his murder trial. Hes not being tried for saying Whack him! Hes being tried for murder. The statement is evidence.
Nor does the principle change just because the speech happens to implicate religion. In America, you can believe whatever you want, but your actions must be lawful. Not surprisingly, the Blind Sheikh contended that his incitements to terror were beyond prosecution because he was practicing his religion: Specifically, he claimed he had simply been performing the traditional role of an Islamic cleric called on to determine whether proposed courses of conduct (in this instance, mass-murder plots) were permissible under Islamic law.
Fourteen years ago, that contention was properly seen as frivolous. In America, we are not under sharia law not yet. There is no religious exception for violent acts, conspiracies, and incitements to violence that violate American law.
So what has happened? Why did we know these rudimentary, commonsense principles in the Nineties but not now? Because incitement explodes the governments religion of peace narrative. The incitement to Islamist terror is Islamic scripture. The Blind Shiekh was not a hypnotist or a particularly compelling speaker. His authority over terrorist organizations was rooted exclusively in his acknowledged mastery of sharia. Islamic scripture was the source of his power over Muslims.
To concede this would be to concede the obvious but unspeakable fact that there is a nexus between Islam and terror. That would harpoon the lovey-dovey dream that Islam and Western democracy are perfectly compatible. It would upset Muslims especially the well-organized, deep-pocketed Islamic grievance industry.
Todays hip, progressive FBI, like Gen. George Caseys modern, slavishly diverse military, doesnt want to upset Muslims. Besides souring State Department cocktail parties and drying up funding for presidential libraries, upsetting Muslims would put a damper on our governments lavish Islamic outreach efforts. These initiatives are premised on the delusion that well stop more terror by having unindicted co-conspirators like CAIR teach Islamic sensitivity to our agents than by turning our agents loose to investigate CAIR and its ilk.
So the FBI ignores the significance of a terrorist clerics influence over an unabashed Islamist in our midst. After all, their contacts seemed to be religious in nature. Were told, moreover, that we cant do anything about the anti-American vitriol oozing out of Islamist mosques under the guidance of our friends the Saudis. After all, the vitriol hasnt yet crossed the line into material support. By the time it does, you might have 13 corpses to tend to, but at least there will be lots to talk about at the next outreach conference or the next time the attorney general decides to speak at a CAIR-fest.
The post-9/11 era was supposed to be about knocking down walls that obstructed effective counterterrorism. But behold the new wall, more insidious than its suicidal Nineties forerunner: the arbitrary barrier separating terrorism from protected incitement the cagey, generalized, non-specific jihadist rhetoric that is the Islamist clerics stock-in-trade.
Aside from not being required by law, this new wall will usually mean you can't go after the worst actors (the Islamic authorities and the terrorists they inspire) until after an attack has happened and Americans have been killed.
In other words, be prepared for more Fort Hoods. Were not in September 10 America. Weve managed to land in a much more dangerous place.
“Besides grossly low-balling the number of U.S. mosques that propagate Islamist ideology the Feebs say its about 10 percent of 2,000 mosques; its actually about six to eight times that amount a top FBI counterterrorism official told Kessler:”
Those who know, know even THIS number is lowball. Any building, parkinglot, or leafy canopied meeting place in some deep woods is rife with jihadis, and don’t let anyone tell you differently.
This is their LAW. They will do what they are told or they will die themselves. Period.
This is an excellent summary of where the elite have traveled in political correctness to now permit open calls nad stated plans for attacking the US. We are back to post 911 mentalities except now it is the American ctizens who are named terrorists by homeland security based upon such “extremist” ideals like the constitution.
You are correct that it is worse now. The politically correct have demanded and recieved that Muslims be placed in all government positions of security and power in their bizarre race quota, non-discrimination game. Diversity demands no one dis the Muslim Koran talk culture advocating for terrorism against Americans and Jooooos.
Thanks for connecting all those dots. Political correctness and tribal hate diversity are a death pact the elite have sworn to uphold while they ignore the constitution and it’s ideals, cultures and behaviors.
If one were inclined towards conspiracy theories it’s almost like we’re in hock up to our eyeballs to our “friends” the Saudis, and they’re calling the tune and we’re dancing to it.
Someone in the justice system is allowing PC idiocy to trump the above... someone, and that might mean you thouworm, needs to get this paragraph to Hannity, Rush and Beck and see if they can "talk" to the FBI about it... Contrary to what people think - there is "group-think" in law enforcement...
Someone in the justice system is allowing PC idiocy to trump the above... someone needs to get this paragraph to Hannity, Rush and Beck and see if they can question the FBI about it... Contrary to what people think - there is "group-think" in law enforcement...