The heat is on. While the London attacks continue, Americans are
on high alert against terrorist attacks on subways and buses, and
those charged with protecting the public’s safety are doing, well,
something. Last week, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly warned subway
riders to be on the lookout for suspicious people: such as those
who might be sweating. C’mon, Commish. Anyone in the Big Apple who
wasn’t sweating last week must have been standing in front of an
air conditioner. Is this our answer to the terrorist bombings in
London? No, there’s worse. One Washington Metro driver, yet another
descendant of Werner von Braun, ignored passengers’ warnings of an
abandoned backpack on a train, and blithely continued a few
stations down the line before stopping to call security. If this is
how serious we are about terrorism, we are lost. And so, possibly,
are the British.
In between the attacks, Tony Blair was bombarded on July 18 by a
report from the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the
“Chatham House” think tank. The report — issued with much media
fanfare — said in the most political and derisive terms that
British involvement in the Iraq war made the U.K. the object of
more terrorism. Blair immediately headed to the microphones to deny
that terrorists were targeting Britain because he sent troops to
Iraq. Blair’s denial is understandable (but obtuse) politically and
— more importantly — wrong. Of course Britain is more of a target
now: Who are the terrorists going to attack but their enemies? You
don’t see al Qaeda sending their first string to bomb France or
Belgium. Why should they attack nations that are no danger to them?
Blair would have done better to say just that. But the threat to
Britain is real, and not just from foreign terrorists.
Britain can no longer ignore the problems embedded in its Muslim
population. All four of the bombers were British citizens but
obviously not loyal to the nation that took them, or their
forbears, in to enjoy the freedoms they couldn’t find at home.
Which is why some Brits now call their capital, “Londonistan.” It’s
sadly too close to the truth. According to a new poll released by
the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, about 24% of British
Muslims “have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of the
bombers.” In fact, about 6% — which could mean as many as 100,000
people — believe the bombings were “fully justified.” Why
shouldn’t they? Too many of their religious leaders preach hate and
violence against Britain.
Omar Bakri Mohamed, the “Tottenham ayatollah,” commenting on the
July 7 bombings, said that bin Laden is “a sincere man who fights
against evil forces,” and that the killing of British and American
troops in Muslim lands was “pro-life” and justified. (Don’t whine:
just deal with it. Mohamed’s use of the term “pro-life” was no
accident.) Mufti Zubair Dudha, billed as an “Islamic scholar,”
openly advocates violence. According to
the Times of London, British police have tried 19 times to
bring charges against seven “preachers of hate” for “incitement to
racial hatred” only to be turned down by prosecutors because —
under the mess of British and EU law — prosecuting preachers of
hate who are clever enough to cloak their bile in religion may
violate their “human rights.”
Blair is trying to pass a number of new laws, one of which would
allow the deportation of those such as Bakri Mohamed who haven’t
taken British citizenship. Another would make “incitement” to
terrorism a crime as well as “acts preparatory to terrorism,” which
could include accessing terrorist group websites. Vague laws such
as those wouldn’t pass constitutional muster here. Britain is
caught in a mess of its own making, because its law now prohibits
deporting Mohamed and his ilk to nations that might abuse them. The
result? The British lion is now, hat in hand, petitioning countries
such as Jordan and Syria to agree that these little dearies won’t
be mistreated if they’re shipped home. Winston Churchill must be
spinning in his grave.
THAT PROBLEM MAY BE overcome, but the worse problem remains: What
can Britain do about the British citizens who preach domestic
jihad?
We’re groping for answers to the same questions. Shall we impose
more closed-circuit television on city streets for the police to
monitor us? The Senate, as oblivious to reality as ever, seems
intent on cutting back the investigative authority of the awfully
named “PATRIOT Act” bestowed on the FBI. We benefit from the fact
that the American Muslim population is assimilated to a greater
extent than its British counterpart. But there are some who aren’t.
We, like the Brits, have to face this problem.
The case of “Islamic scholar” Ali al-Timimi gives us little
guidance. Timimi was convicted of soliciting treason for exhorting
his followers to join the Taliban after 9-11. He will have plenty
of time to do more of this while serving life in prison for this
offense. But what about those who preach jihad but don’t advocate
specific acts of treason or violence?
Free speech, including religious speech, is protected by our
First Amendment. More than 200 years ago, the “Alien and Sedition”
acts made much anti-government speech illegal. Free speech gained
protection over the years and in 1969, in Brandenberg v.
Ohio, the Supreme Court said that even hate speech was within
the First Amendment’s scope. Today, anything that doesn’t advocate
specific acts of violence appears to be protected, and that’s okay.
We mustn’t sacrifice freedom of speech to the terrorist threat.
There’s no need to.
Our best defense against terrorism at home is to strengthen, not
weaken, our individual freedoms. There are myriad ways to do that.
How about raising the bar on libel and slander, so that anyone who
wants to publicize the rants of any American versions of the
Tottenham ayatollah will have much greater protections against
libel suits? Why don’t we extend the “good Samaritan” laws so many
states have to protect people who take action to thwart a terrorist
plot or an attack in progress from any criminal or civil liability?
So many states readily issue concealed weapons permits, but to
carry a weapon from state to state is confusing and risky. Why not
mandate a nationally valid carry permit, or at least require states
to give reciprocity to permits issued by other states?
While we’re enhancing our own freedoms, we need to reduce the
terrorists’. Let’s make it tougher for terrorists to make a home
here. We should make it a whole bunch easier for a naturalized
citizen to have his citizenship revoked if he advocates terrorism
in or against the United States. And — here’s a really novel idea
— why don’t we close our borders to illegal immigration, deport
those here illegally, and make it much tougher for anyone — yes,
anyone — to get a visa to enter the U.S.? Just a thought.
TAS contributing editor Jed Babbin is the author
of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are Worse Than
You Think (Regnery, 2004).
