-
A Palestinian in Texas
November 9, 2012 | 20 comments
Feature
Waging Jihad Through the American Courts
Islamists know how to play the game.
(Page 3 of 3)
• The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) brought a defamation lawsuit against former Rep. Cass Ballenger (a Republican from North Carolina), after he spoke of having reported CAIR to federal authorities as a “fundraising arm for Hezbollah.” CAIR also filed suit alleging “libelous defamation” against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR for his terming CAIR “a terrorist supporting front organization” founded by members of Hamas.
• CAIR-Canada, CAIR’s Canadian adjunct, sued David Harris,
formerly of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, along with
Ottawa’s CFRA radio station, because Harris, speaking on CFRA,
noted that 70 percent of funds raised by CAIR-CAN go to CAIR and
suggested that the Canadian government should look into
CAIR-Canada’s relationship with CAIR.
Finally, Islamists make life difficult for the U.S. government
itself by bringing lawsuits against agencies tasked with
maintaining security:
• A Georgia chicken farm alleged to be part of the Safa Group won much attention for suing the government because its attorney, Wilmer Parker, a former assistant U.S. attorney, claimed that federal prosecutors “knowingly made false statements” to obtain the search warrant for the raids. The lawsuit was dismissed.
• Five U.S. Muslim citizens got CAIR and ACLU support to sue the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol for detaining them upon their return from an Islamic conference in Toronto, a conference which the patrol believed was a potential meeting place for terrorists. The suit was dismissed.
• Abdel Moniem Ali El-Ganayni, a nuclear physicist of Egyptian origins, sued the Department of Energy after it revoked his security clearance following an investigation that revealed he had “knowingly established or continued sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, terrorist, traitor, seditionist, anarchist, or revolutionist, espionage agent, or representative of a foreign nation whose interests are inimical to the interests of the United States.”
Win or lose, the Islamists’ legal gambits disrupt the work of law enforcement.
Such predatory lawsuits also carry risks, however. Not only are they expensive and likely to go down in flames, as did the Unus effort, but they can backfire and wreak damage on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs can look foolish when they must suddenly drop lawsuits, as did CAIR in its case against Andrew Whitehead or KinderUSA in its case against Yale University Press and Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Worse yet, Enaam Arnaout, director of the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), made statements in BIF’s suit against the U.S. government that led to his being charged with obstruction of justice, convicted, and sentenced to 121 months in jail.
Policy Recommendation
The unus and other lawsuits point to an abuse of the legal
system in need of remedy. Fortunately, important steps toward such
a remedy do exist, albeit usually only for private individuals:
that would be anti-SLAPP legislation, where SLAPP stands for
“Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation.” A SLAPP,
according to the California Anti-SLAPP Project, generally is “a (1)
civil complaint or counterclaim; (2) filed against individuals or
organizations; (3) arising from their communications
to government or speech on an issue of public interest or concern.”
When these conditions are met, the court can make the plaintiff pay
the defendant’s attorney’s fees and other legal costs.
The legislation works. The ADL filed an anti-SLAPP motion against Khadija Ghafur, prompting the court to dismiss her case. KinderUSA dropped its lawsuit as soon as the defendants made an anti-SLAPP motion, even before the court ruled on it. But anti-SLAPP statutes are only spottily available; nearly half the states and the federal government have not enacted them. Also, in too many instances the legislation is too narrowly construed by courts, making it an ineffective tool for defendants. For example, in the ISB case, the judge denied an anti-SLAPP motion on the grounds that only activities directly related to petitioning the government, not media activities, are protected by Massachusetts’ anti-SLAPP statute.
It is time to enact a uniform, federal anti-SLAPP legislation, as is now being proposed under the name of the Citizen Participation in Government and Society Act. Among other benefits, this will protect researchers and activists dealing with radical Islam and terrorism from predatory use of the legal system. If the war against radical Islam is to be won, all avenues of attack, including the courts, need to be battened down.
About the Author
Daniel Pipes is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, director of the Middle East Forum, and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Pipes
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/31/waging-jihad-through-the-ameri
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 3.31.10 @ 6:54AM
Waging Jihad Through the American Courts : USACTION NEWS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim*| 3.31.10 @ 7:40AM
Hi Dan !
I'm sorry I pinched your finger moving Paula's furniture into the basement.
You got a nice house !
Pingback| 3.31.10 @ 8:20AM
Must Know Headlines 3.31.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
davelnaf| 3.31.10 @ 9:55AM
These lawsuits may not be about the plaintiff’s Islamist sympathies or over their hyper sensitivity to alleged ethnic persecution. It may be about something else. Islam has always looked too much like a tool for the subjugation of others rather than a religion that happened also to engage in this practice.
These people with Islamist sympathies are purportedly here for good jobs. But why would anyone go to so much trouble in the name of Islam and Islamic causes, as detailed in this article, if a better standard of living was their primary reason for being here?
Ryan| 3.31.10 @ 11:10AM
Typically - and this seems to be changing - most of the Muslims that move to the US trend moderate in their religious views.
The trying point will be if society pushes back - as Australia is doing - against the more radical elements.
Alan Brooks| 3.31.10 @ 5:28PM
"as Australia is doing - against the more radical elements. "
Yes, but Europe has no oceans to defend itself from Jihadists. The germans wanted sort of an alliance with Islam in 1940-- well, they got it 70 years later; and you don't want to be in Europe when the welfare checks start bouncing, as they say.
Adheeb| 3.31.10 @ 10:16AM
The Muslims have been at war with the world for more than a thousand years .... why should we expect that to change?
Brian B| 3.31.10 @ 10:23AM
Anti SLAPP laws, unless very narrowly drafted, are at least as harmful as the problem they supposedly solve.
Harry| 3.31.10 @ 10:45AM
"Loser Pays" would fix this sort of problem.
S_in_severn| 3.31.10 @ 11:01AM
Read up on what happened to Algeria during the 1980s and the 1990s, as well as what was happening in Britain and France during the exact same time...
How many "Islamists" are practicing lawyers right now? Not necessarily "Muslim" but "endorse" Islamists' worldviews and what to bring/tear-down the institutions of the "corrupt" Western (christian) Civilization.
Muharib (or more colloquially "Hirabah") is the direct opposite of "Jihad." What al Qaeda does is wage " Hirabah" and it's followers are “hirabi” or “hirabist.”
Whether they are wearing a bomb vest, or packed their bodies with explosives, or even take their fight to the MSM and the Courts of their "targeted" countries. they wage an unholy battle of
What is needed is the mind-set to call out ALL Mufsidoon (evil-doers) and send them all to Shaitan's Jahannam; a place where there are no 72 virgins (or Virginians) waiting.
tailgunner 13| 3.31.10 @ 11:45AM
If a government official is acting within the bounds of his position, he is immune from lawsuits.
That means the US Government becomes the defendant in any subsequent civil action.
That was the reason that Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who killed Randy Weaver's wife during Ruby Ridge, had the US Government settle a lawsuit against him for $380,000.
Incidentally, Horiuchi was ruled immune from manslaughter charges due to 'sovereign immunity'.
Remember that next time the cops are surrounding your house asking for your guns.
Anthony| 3.31.10 @ 2:56PM
Mr. Pipes, I have enjoyed your many contributions to reasoned thinking.
Of course Jihad is being waged by Islamists through the courts; they are aided and abetted by the radical Left for whom Alinsky's tactics are the means to the end. Use the moral and intellectual infrastructure of your enemy to bring them down.
Pingback| 3.31.10 @ 4:28PM
Waging Jihad Through the American Courts « Faithandthelaw's Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Conrad Spircacy| 3.31.10 @ 6:41PM
DISCLAIMER: I have not read every word of this column in excruciating detail, but have scanned it in a cursory manner, looking for the things that might most specifically reduce the plaintiffs' facts as scurrilous and rediculous.
I don't see anywhere that the plaintiffs were citizens. NON-CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS - Human Rights yes, full rights to the protections of the Constitution, no!
PERIOD!
Con Spriacy
Excelsior!
Conrad Spiracy| 3.31.10 @ 6:42PM
WOW. Typo'ed my name twice in one post. It's been a long week today.
Con Spiracy
Sweet Dreams| 4.1.10 @ 6:19PM
Conrad,
You need to get some more sleep. Then, when you wake up in the morning you will have had a good week's night.
Oakley| 4.2.10 @ 1:59AM
Oakley Sunglasses enjoy good reputation, Rayban Sunglasses are hot style of optical sereis and here we also supply Oakley Canteens. http://www.sunglasses-shopping.com/
Michele San Pietro| 4.2.10 @ 11:23AM
Islamic terrorism must simply be stamped out!
Bigmo| 4.3.10 @ 6:52AM
Danile Pipes is a Trotskyist Marxist Neocon revolutionary and wants Americans to fight for Jews and Israel.
Nick| 4.4.10 @ 12:22AM
Riiiiiight!
And Glen Beck is a spy for Castro.
wagngsir| 4.19.10 @ 3:37AM
Love yourself, love life.
Free download AVI to iPad, convert kinds of videos to iPad for playing.