ACLU taps top legal talent to defend accused 9-11 plotters
By Carol Rosenberg
The American Civil Liberties Union, which for years has scorned Pentagon military commissions as "kangaroo courts,'' announced Friday that it will try to provide top civilian defense attorneys for alleged terrorists facing trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — including the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Former Attorney General Janet Reno is among top lawyers who've endorsed the $8.5 million effort, which will help coordinate and defray the expenses of civilian defense attorneys working on the terrorism cases. Under the military commissions scheme, the Pentagon won't reimburse volunteer civilian attorneys for their expenses.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said a major thrust of the effort will be to defend Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who military officials say has confessed to masterminding the 9-11 attacks and several other terrorist acts, including the beheading in Pakistan of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl.
The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed's defense, Romero said, because he appears to be "the government's top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.''
Mohammed was held in secret CIA custody until September 2006, and the CIA has admitted subjecting him to waterboarding while he was being questioned. Waterboarding is simulated drowning and is considered torture by many rights advocates.
Mohammed's case "is likely to raise the most significant issues of torture, hearsay evidence and access to counsel,'' Romero said.
At the Pentagon, a war court spokesman said the Office of Military Commissions hadn't received details about the ACLU program.
...
Where is the A.C.L.U. getting the $$$$ to pay for this defense?!?!?!?!?
Pertinent Links:
1) ACLU taps top legal talent to defend accused 9-11 plotters
Showing posts with label jihad via lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jihad via lawsuit. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - MINNESOTA: "JOHN DOES" NO LONGER NAMED IN THE 'FLYING IMAMS' LAWSUIT
Imams' bias suit drops passengers
by John Brewer
An attorney for six imams removed from a US Airways flight in November 2006 at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport said in federal court Tuesday that his clients will not sue the passengers who reported that the men were acting suspiciously.
The attorney, Frederick Goetz of Minneapolis, said the focus of the lawsuit now "is always where it has been."
"The motion was to amend the complaint to name the responsible individuals. The responsible individuals are all government officials or employees of US Airways," Goetz said. "We're simply doing what the law requires to vindicate the denial of the imams' civil rights."
The imams' suit, filed March 12, alleges the group was illegally removed from the Phoenix-bound flight "on the basis of their perceived race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, and/or national origin; lied to about the reasons they were removed; unlawfully searched; and denied an attorney."
The suit targets US Airways and the airport but also listed "John Does" as defendants. Originally, the suit described "John Does" as passengers who contacted the airline to report that the imams were acting suspiciously. The suit later was amended to identify them as those who "may have made false reports" against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them.
The six men were returning from a conference in Minneapolis at the time of the incident.
Pertinent Links:
1) Imams' bias suit drops passengers
by John Brewer
An attorney for six imams removed from a US Airways flight in November 2006 at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport said in federal court Tuesday that his clients will not sue the passengers who reported that the men were acting suspiciously.
The attorney, Frederick Goetz of Minneapolis, said the focus of the lawsuit now "is always where it has been."
"The motion was to amend the complaint to name the responsible individuals. The responsible individuals are all government officials or employees of US Airways," Goetz said. "We're simply doing what the law requires to vindicate the denial of the imams' civil rights."
The imams' suit, filed March 12, alleges the group was illegally removed from the Phoenix-bound flight "on the basis of their perceived race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, and/or national origin; lied to about the reasons they were removed; unlawfully searched; and denied an attorney."
The suit targets US Airways and the airport but also listed "John Does" as defendants. Originally, the suit described "John Does" as passengers who contacted the airline to report that the imams were acting suspiciously. The suit later was amended to identify them as those who "may have made false reports" against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them.
The six men were returning from a conference in Minneapolis at the time of the incident.
Pertinent Links:
1) Imams' bias suit drops passengers
Monday, July 30, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - MISSOURI: ST. LOUIS COUNTY REJECTS A PROPOSAL FOR A SATELLITE TERROR OFFICE (MOSQUE) - - - LAWSUIT PENDING
A mosque for South County
Between the legitimate concern about terrorism and the overheated rhetoric it often generates, it's not beyond possibility that religious discrimination has played a part in the St. Louis County Council's wrongheaded rejection of a proposed Islamic center on Lemay Ferry Road near Buckley Road in south St. Louis County.
It's also possible, though, that the opposition stems from simple misunderstanding.
The proposed center would serve a congregation that is about 85 percent Bosnian. Some 50,000 Bosnians have settled in the St. Louis region since fleeing the brutal civil war that attended the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
The immigrants arrived nearly penniless, as many immigrants do, and promptly went to work. They fixed up homes, started businesses and revived neighborhoods in south St. Louis. As their economic fortunes improved, some moved into south St. Louis County. St. Louis' Bosnian community is an American success story, built on determination and hard work.
...
Mr. Campisi has declined to answer questions about the issue, citing a pending lawsuit aimed at overturning the council's rejection. But only two of more than a dozen nearby residents interviewed by a Post-Dispatch reporter and an editorial writer objected to the development.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) A mosque for South County
Between the legitimate concern about terrorism and the overheated rhetoric it often generates, it's not beyond possibility that religious discrimination has played a part in the St. Louis County Council's wrongheaded rejection of a proposed Islamic center on Lemay Ferry Road near Buckley Road in south St. Louis County.
It's also possible, though, that the opposition stems from simple misunderstanding.
The proposed center would serve a congregation that is about 85 percent Bosnian. Some 50,000 Bosnians have settled in the St. Louis region since fleeing the brutal civil war that attended the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
The immigrants arrived nearly penniless, as many immigrants do, and promptly went to work. They fixed up homes, started businesses and revived neighborhoods in south St. Louis. As their economic fortunes improved, some moved into south St. Louis County. St. Louis' Bosnian community is an American success story, built on determination and hard work.
...
Mr. Campisi has declined to answer questions about the issue, citing a pending lawsuit aimed at overturning the council's rejection. But only two of more than a dozen nearby residents interviewed by a Post-Dispatch reporter and an editorial writer objected to the development.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) A mosque for South County
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - WASHINGTON D.C.: "JOHN DOE PROTECTIONS" TO BE INCLUDED - - - WHAT DID THE DEMOCRATS RECEIVE IN RETURN?!?
Congress to Protect Citizens Who Report 'Flying Imams'-Type Suspicions
By Major Garrett
WASHINGTON — After nearly a week of intense, behind-the-scenes wrangling, congressional negotiators late Tuesday agreed to include in the pending Sept. 11 security bill sweeping liability protections for citizens who report to authorities suspicious activity they fear might be linked to terrorism.
The "John Doe Protections" provision is meant to address the so-called "Flying Imams" case wherein six Muslim clerics in March sued passengers aboard a Northwest Airlines flight because the passengers reported them to authorities, leading to their detention. The clerics were later cleared but their lawsuit, many lawmakers feared, would discourage future vigilance among the flying public.
The Sept. 11 security bill is a top Democratic priority and Republicans fought hard to include the passenger immunity protection, creating common cause with Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the conference committee that is knitting together the House and Senate bills.
House Democrats, led by Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, sought changes in the immunity language but were ultimately overwhelmed by the Lieberman-GOP coalition on the conference committee.
"This is a huge win—a hard-fought victory for House Republicans and, more importantly, for the American people," said Rep. Peter King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee. "In a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democratic opposition to this important homeland security measure, I’m thrilled to announce that common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be protected from frivolous lawsuits."
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Congress to Protect Citizens Who Report 'Flying Imams'-Type Suspicions
By Major Garrett
WASHINGTON — After nearly a week of intense, behind-the-scenes wrangling, congressional negotiators late Tuesday agreed to include in the pending Sept. 11 security bill sweeping liability protections for citizens who report to authorities suspicious activity they fear might be linked to terrorism.
The "John Doe Protections" provision is meant to address the so-called "Flying Imams" case wherein six Muslim clerics in March sued passengers aboard a Northwest Airlines flight because the passengers reported them to authorities, leading to their detention. The clerics were later cleared but their lawsuit, many lawmakers feared, would discourage future vigilance among the flying public.
The Sept. 11 security bill is a top Democratic priority and Republicans fought hard to include the passenger immunity protection, creating common cause with Connecticut Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, chairman of the conference committee that is knitting together the House and Senate bills.
House Democrats, led by Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, sought changes in the immunity language but were ultimately overwhelmed by the Lieberman-GOP coalition on the conference committee.
"This is a huge win—a hard-fought victory for House Republicans and, more importantly, for the American people," said Rep. Peter King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee. "In a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democratic opposition to this important homeland security measure, I’m thrilled to announce that common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be protected from frivolous lawsuits."
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Congress to Protect Citizens Who Report 'Flying Imams'-Type Suspicions
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - MISSOURI: LEGAL JIHAD IN ST. LOUIS - - - WE WANT THAT DAMNED ISLAMIC CENTER (SATELLITE TERROR OFFICE) COME HELL OR HIGH WATER
Dooley vows to resolve Islamic center issue
By Phil Sutin
CLAYTON — St. Louis County "will work something out" to resolve a zoning dispute and allow the Islamic Community Center organization to build at a site in south St. Louis County, County Executive Charlie Dooley says.
After Tuesday's County Council meeting, Dooley walked up to four people who had spoken out against the council's denial of a rezoning for the Islamic center. He told them "we'll work it out."
The group, whose members mainly are Bosnian, wants to build a structure of 25,000 square feet on 4.72 acres on the northwest side of Lemay Ferry Road, 75 feet northeast of Buckley Road near Mehlville High School. The four speakers were outside the council chamber when Dooley approached them.
In an interview a short time later, the county executive said he wanted to resolve the matter "before it gets out of hand." Advertisement
He said he could not be more specific because of a lawsuit challenging the council's denial of the rezoning in April. But he indicated the county counselor's office was discussing the matter with the attorney for the center.
At the council meeting, Councilman John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, shouted "I'm no bigot" after Rick Isserman called the denial of the rezoning an act of bigotry.
The site is in Campisi's district. When the council rejected the rezoning in April, Campisi denied that religious discrimination was involved in his opposition. He said he received 60 calls against the proposal, with callers citing traffic and storm water control concerns.
As Isserman was leaving the speaker's podium, Campisi called him back. "First of all there is no bigotry," Campisi said. "I'm not going to let you call me a bigot ever!"
After the meeting, Campisi said he cannot make any further comments because of the lawsuit.
Isserman is a grandson of the late Rabbi Ferdinand Isserman of Temple Israel. Ferdinand Isserman was the rabbi in 1959 when the temple won a state Supreme Court ruling against Creve Coeur, which had blocked the temple's plans to move there.
Melissa Matos, executive director of the Missouri chapter of the Council of American Islamic Relations, told the council that federal law does not allow governments to impose a greater burden on religious institutions than they would on private ones.
Khalid Shah, a member of the center, said the county's planning and zoning commission had voted 8-0 to recommend rezoning for the center. He called the council's rejection of the center xenophobic.
"It does not put you in a good light," Shah said.
Muhamed Hasic, the president and imam of the community center, said initially it would not include a mosque. If a mosque is added, it would not take up more than about 1,000 square feet, he said. The center would devote most of its space to activities such as child care and programs for youth, he said.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Dooley vows to resolve Islamic center issue
By Phil Sutin
CLAYTON — St. Louis County "will work something out" to resolve a zoning dispute and allow the Islamic Community Center organization to build at a site in south St. Louis County, County Executive Charlie Dooley says.
After Tuesday's County Council meeting, Dooley walked up to four people who had spoken out against the council's denial of a rezoning for the Islamic center. He told them "we'll work it out."
The group, whose members mainly are Bosnian, wants to build a structure of 25,000 square feet on 4.72 acres on the northwest side of Lemay Ferry Road, 75 feet northeast of Buckley Road near Mehlville High School. The four speakers were outside the council chamber when Dooley approached them.
In an interview a short time later, the county executive said he wanted to resolve the matter "before it gets out of hand." Advertisement
He said he could not be more specific because of a lawsuit challenging the council's denial of the rezoning in April. But he indicated the county counselor's office was discussing the matter with the attorney for the center.
At the council meeting, Councilman John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, shouted "I'm no bigot" after Rick Isserman called the denial of the rezoning an act of bigotry.
The site is in Campisi's district. When the council rejected the rezoning in April, Campisi denied that religious discrimination was involved in his opposition. He said he received 60 calls against the proposal, with callers citing traffic and storm water control concerns.
As Isserman was leaving the speaker's podium, Campisi called him back. "First of all there is no bigotry," Campisi said. "I'm not going to let you call me a bigot ever!"
After the meeting, Campisi said he cannot make any further comments because of the lawsuit.
Isserman is a grandson of the late Rabbi Ferdinand Isserman of Temple Israel. Ferdinand Isserman was the rabbi in 1959 when the temple won a state Supreme Court ruling against Creve Coeur, which had blocked the temple's plans to move there.
Melissa Matos, executive director of the Missouri chapter of the Council of American Islamic Relations, told the council that federal law does not allow governments to impose a greater burden on religious institutions than they would on private ones.
Khalid Shah, a member of the center, said the county's planning and zoning commission had voted 8-0 to recommend rezoning for the center. He called the council's rejection of the center xenophobic.
"It does not put you in a good light," Shah said.
Muhamed Hasic, the president and imam of the community center, said initially it would not include a mosque. If a mosque is added, it would not take up more than about 1,000 square feet, he said. The center would devote most of its space to activities such as child care and programs for youth, he said.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Dooley vows to resolve Islamic center issue
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - GEORGIA: AN UPDATE ON THE 'HEAD TO TOE BAG' IN VALDOSTA GEORGIE
***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***
An update concerning the reports out of Georgia and the denial of entry, into a court of law, of a 'head to toe bag'...
Prior posts concerning this story can be found here & here...
Muslims, Valdosta Discuss Scarf Issue
by Bernie O'Donnell
VALDOSTA, Ga. (AP) -- Members of a national Muslim advocacy group met with Valdosta city officials today about a policy they say prohibited a Muslim woman from wearing a traditional head scarf into a municipal courtroom.
But the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations said no resolution was reached in the case of Aniisa Karim. The 20-year-old said she was banned from entering the Valdosta municipal court building on June 26 unless she took off the scarf.
Ahmed Bedier, director of the council's Tampa, Florida, branch, said there was a "cooperative spirit" and an agreement to continue the talks.
Karim, a Baltimore native who works for a Valdosta radio station, was attempting to contest a speeding ticket when she was stopped by a security officer. She said she explained that she wore the traditional garment for religious reasons, but was denied entry due to "homeland security" concerns.
Bedier said representatives of the Valdosta city attorney's office, the state's Southern Judicial Circuit and the Georgia Association of Muslim Attorneys attended today's meeting.
Bedier said the two sides intend to stay in contact for the rest of this week and "hopefully make some further progress next week."
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslims, Valdosta Discuss Scarf Issue
An update concerning the reports out of Georgia and the denial of entry, into a court of law, of a 'head to toe bag'...
Prior posts concerning this story can be found here & here...
Muslims, Valdosta Discuss Scarf Issue
by Bernie O'Donnell
VALDOSTA, Ga. (AP) -- Members of a national Muslim advocacy group met with Valdosta city officials today about a policy they say prohibited a Muslim woman from wearing a traditional head scarf into a municipal courtroom.
But the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations said no resolution was reached in the case of Aniisa Karim. The 20-year-old said she was banned from entering the Valdosta municipal court building on June 26 unless she took off the scarf.
Ahmed Bedier, director of the council's Tampa, Florida, branch, said there was a "cooperative spirit" and an agreement to continue the talks.
Karim, a Baltimore native who works for a Valdosta radio station, was attempting to contest a speeding ticket when she was stopped by a security officer. She said she explained that she wore the traditional garment for religious reasons, but was denied entry due to "homeland security" concerns.
Bedier said representatives of the Valdosta city attorney's office, the state's Southern Judicial Circuit and the Georgia Association of Muslim Attorneys attended today's meeting.
Bedier said the two sides intend to stay in contact for the rest of this week and "hopefully make some further progress next week."
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslims, Valdosta Discuss Scarf Issue
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - CALIFORNIA: ANOTHER LAWSUITE BY A SHMATA WEARING MOSLEMA
Muslim Sues Jeweller Over Headscarf
A Muslim woman sued a national jewelry chain Tuesday for allegedly not hiring her because she wore a headscarf, the plaintiff's attorneys said.
Shereen Attia, 24, of Fairfield, had worked for Whitehall Jewelers Inc. in a Solano County mall as a part-time sales associate starting in 2004. She received good reviews but was fired when business slowed. Her manager invited her to reapply six months later, in Oct. 2006, when a full-time employee quit, according to the suit filed in Solano Superior Court.
Between employment, she'd become more religiously observant and started wearing a headscarf that covers her hair and neck, but not her face.
When Attia turned in her second application to work at the suburban San Francisco store, she was wearing her headscarf. She never got a call back from the company, she said.
Attia charged in the suit that the district manager had advised her former manager against hiring someone with a headscarf.
"I felt betrayed," said Attia. "I had worked for the company for more than a year and had a proven track record. I was a good sales person. I'm still the same person with the same personality."
A spokeswoman said the Chicago-based company didn't comment because executives had not yet reviewed the suit.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim Sues Jeweller Over Headscarf
A Muslim woman sued a national jewelry chain Tuesday for allegedly not hiring her because she wore a headscarf, the plaintiff's attorneys said.
Shereen Attia, 24, of Fairfield, had worked for Whitehall Jewelers Inc. in a Solano County mall as a part-time sales associate starting in 2004. She received good reviews but was fired when business slowed. Her manager invited her to reapply six months later, in Oct. 2006, when a full-time employee quit, according to the suit filed in Solano Superior Court.
Between employment, she'd become more religiously observant and started wearing a headscarf that covers her hair and neck, but not her face.
When Attia turned in her second application to work at the suburban San Francisco store, she was wearing her headscarf. She never got a call back from the company, she said.
Attia charged in the suit that the district manager had advised her former manager against hiring someone with a headscarf.
"I felt betrayed," said Attia. "I had worked for the company for more than a year and had a proven track record. I was a good sales person. I'm still the same person with the same personality."
A spokeswoman said the Chicago-based company didn't comment because executives had not yet reviewed the suit.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim Sues Jeweller Over Headscarf
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - ILLINOIS: MOSLEM DUNKIN DONUTS OWNER GETS TO SUE DUNKIN DONUTS BECAUSE THEY WANT HIM TO SELL PORK PRODUCTS
Muslim Dunkin' owner gets OK to sue over pork
LOS ANGELES (Reuters)—A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin' Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The decision reversed an Illinois federal court judge's 2004 ruling that rejected Walid Elkhatib's argument that Dunkin' Donuts discriminated against him based on his race by making the sale of breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage a mandatory part of his franchise agreement.
According to court papers, Elkhatib, a Palestinian Arab, has been a Dunkin' Donuts franchisee since 1979, before the company began selling any pork.
Once breakfast sandwiches were introduced in 1984, Mr. Elkhatib's Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts outlets sold them without bacon, ham or sausage for nearly 20 years. The company did not object, even providing him with a sign that said "Meat Products Not Available."
In 2002, however, Mr. Elkhatib was told he would not be able to relocate a store or renew his franchisee agreements due to his failure to carry the full product line.
Mr. Elkhatib sued Dunkin' Donuts and its former parent company, Allied Domecq, later that year, claiming that the chain's refusal to renew his franchises constituted racial discrimination.
In an opinion Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote that because three other Dunkin' Donuts franchisees in the area were allowed to continue operating without selling breakfast sandwiches for reasons other than the owners' religious views, such as space or lease restrictions, that there was sufficient evidence to take the suit to trial.
"There is significant evidence that the carrying of breakfast sandwiches was not an issue of importance to Dunkin Donuts. It allowed other franchises in the area to refuse to carry any breakfast sandwiches at all, when merely relocating the stores, or in one case merely rearranging the displays, would have allowed them to carry the full line," Judge Rovner wrote.
She added that "there is no evidence that there was any change in corporate policy, or even regional policy, on the matter."
A Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman said she could not comment on pending litigation. Mr. Elkhatib could not immediately be reached for comment.
Dunkin' Donuts is a unit of Dunkin' Brands, which is owned by private equity firms Bain Capital, Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee partners.
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim Dunkin' owner gets OK to sue over pork
LOS ANGELES (Reuters)—A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin' Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The decision reversed an Illinois federal court judge's 2004 ruling that rejected Walid Elkhatib's argument that Dunkin' Donuts discriminated against him based on his race by making the sale of breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage a mandatory part of his franchise agreement.
According to court papers, Elkhatib, a Palestinian Arab, has been a Dunkin' Donuts franchisee since 1979, before the company began selling any pork.
Once breakfast sandwiches were introduced in 1984, Mr. Elkhatib's Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts outlets sold them without bacon, ham or sausage for nearly 20 years. The company did not object, even providing him with a sign that said "Meat Products Not Available."
In 2002, however, Mr. Elkhatib was told he would not be able to relocate a store or renew his franchisee agreements due to his failure to carry the full product line.
Mr. Elkhatib sued Dunkin' Donuts and its former parent company, Allied Domecq, later that year, claiming that the chain's refusal to renew his franchises constituted racial discrimination.
In an opinion Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner wrote that because three other Dunkin' Donuts franchisees in the area were allowed to continue operating without selling breakfast sandwiches for reasons other than the owners' religious views, such as space or lease restrictions, that there was sufficient evidence to take the suit to trial.
"There is significant evidence that the carrying of breakfast sandwiches was not an issue of importance to Dunkin Donuts. It allowed other franchises in the area to refuse to carry any breakfast sandwiches at all, when merely relocating the stores, or in one case merely rearranging the displays, would have allowed them to carry the full line," Judge Rovner wrote.
She added that "there is no evidence that there was any change in corporate policy, or even regional policy, on the matter."
A Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman said she could not comment on pending litigation. Mr. Elkhatib could not immediately be reached for comment.
Dunkin' Donuts is a unit of Dunkin' Brands, which is owned by private equity firms Bain Capital, Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee partners.
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim Dunkin' owner gets OK to sue over pork
Sunday, July 01, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - GEORGIA: "HEAD TO TOE BAG" DENIED ENTRY INTO COURTROOM
Muslim denied entrance to court
By Kelli Hernandez
VALDOSTA — A Muslim woman seeking to contest a simple speeding ticket was denied access to the Valdosta courtroom of Municipal Court Judge Vernita Lee Bender because she was wearing a traditional Islamic head scarf.
The day of her hearing, 20-year-old Aniisa Karim said she walked in the front doors of the Municipal Court building and was told that she would not be permitted to enter the courtroom with her scarf on even after she explained to the security officer that she is not permitted by her religion to remove the scarf in public. Karim said the officer called for his lieutenant, who affirmed the decision that Karim would be barred from the courtroom unless her scarf was removed.
“I said, ‘No, I’m Muslim, and like I told (the first officer) I wear this for religious reasons and if you don’t allow me in the courtroom with my scarf on basically you are violating my civil rights and my right to a free religion because this is my religion,’” Karim said.
Karim said one of the officers told her that the denial of entry to the courtroom was due to “homeland security reasons” and that allowing her to enter would show “disrespect” to the judge, though Karim offered to walk through the metal detectors and allow the officers utilize the handheld metal detector to scan the scarf.
Karim said she asked the officers what she was supposed to do about her ticket since she was not removing the scarf in public. The officers then called out a court clerk who told Karim that she would be permitted to reschedule her hearing for a future date, though she would still not be permitted to wear her scarf into the courtroom at that time.
According to Karim, her only option was to plead nolo contendere and pay the $168 fine since that process could be completed in the lobby without entering the courtroom.
Through the clerk of court, Judge Vernita Lee Bender communicated an apology for the denial of entry stating “we have rules that everyone has to follow,” according to Karim.
Following the advice of a family friend who is an attorney and also Muslim, Karim contacted the Council of American-Islamic Relations, a prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group.
In response to Karim’s story, the Washington-based group wrote a letter to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker which stated, “We assert that Judge Bender’s actions violated the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, which states: ‘Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others to subject to judicial direction and control to do so.’”
CAIR added that under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the courtroom should be considered a “public facility” and denial of access to the courtroom based on religious beliefs or practices is therefore discriminatory.
“In addition, we believe Judge Bender’s actions are in violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of religion and equal protection under the law. Two state supreme courts have ruled that government must show compelling state interest in preventing religious head coverings in a courtroom. Obviously, we believe that no such compelling interest exists in this case,” CAIR stated in the letter.
CAIR requested that Baker “take appropriate action to ensure that the legal, religious and civil rights of Georgians of all faiths be maintained.” The group also asked for a formal apology from Bender and a written assurance that Karim and all others wearing religious attire be allowed in her courtroom.
“I feel like in the year 2007 things like this should not happen any more,” Karim said. “Of course everyone doesn’t know everything about different religions, but if I tell you, ‘I’m Muslim this is a part of my religion,’ I feel like if you are a public officer you should be educated enough to know.”
Karim stated that she hopes that as a result of the incident public officials will be more educated about different religions and different people so that others’ rights are not violated.
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim denied entrance to court
By Kelli Hernandez
VALDOSTA — A Muslim woman seeking to contest a simple speeding ticket was denied access to the Valdosta courtroom of Municipal Court Judge Vernita Lee Bender because she was wearing a traditional Islamic head scarf.
The day of her hearing, 20-year-old Aniisa Karim said she walked in the front doors of the Municipal Court building and was told that she would not be permitted to enter the courtroom with her scarf on even after she explained to the security officer that she is not permitted by her religion to remove the scarf in public. Karim said the officer called for his lieutenant, who affirmed the decision that Karim would be barred from the courtroom unless her scarf was removed.
“I said, ‘No, I’m Muslim, and like I told (the first officer) I wear this for religious reasons and if you don’t allow me in the courtroom with my scarf on basically you are violating my civil rights and my right to a free religion because this is my religion,’” Karim said.
Karim said one of the officers told her that the denial of entry to the courtroom was due to “homeland security reasons” and that allowing her to enter would show “disrespect” to the judge, though Karim offered to walk through the metal detectors and allow the officers utilize the handheld metal detector to scan the scarf.
Karim said she asked the officers what she was supposed to do about her ticket since she was not removing the scarf in public. The officers then called out a court clerk who told Karim that she would be permitted to reschedule her hearing for a future date, though she would still not be permitted to wear her scarf into the courtroom at that time.
According to Karim, her only option was to plead nolo contendere and pay the $168 fine since that process could be completed in the lobby without entering the courtroom.
Through the clerk of court, Judge Vernita Lee Bender communicated an apology for the denial of entry stating “we have rules that everyone has to follow,” according to Karim.
Following the advice of a family friend who is an attorney and also Muslim, Karim contacted the Council of American-Islamic Relations, a prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group.
In response to Karim’s story, the Washington-based group wrote a letter to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker which stated, “We assert that Judge Bender’s actions violated the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, which states: ‘Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others to subject to judicial direction and control to do so.’”
CAIR added that under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the courtroom should be considered a “public facility” and denial of access to the courtroom based on religious beliefs or practices is therefore discriminatory.
“In addition, we believe Judge Bender’s actions are in violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of religion and equal protection under the law. Two state supreme courts have ruled that government must show compelling state interest in preventing religious head coverings in a courtroom. Obviously, we believe that no such compelling interest exists in this case,” CAIR stated in the letter.
CAIR requested that Baker “take appropriate action to ensure that the legal, religious and civil rights of Georgians of all faiths be maintained.” The group also asked for a formal apology from Bender and a written assurance that Karim and all others wearing religious attire be allowed in her courtroom.
“I feel like in the year 2007 things like this should not happen any more,” Karim said. “Of course everyone doesn’t know everything about different religions, but if I tell you, ‘I’m Muslim this is a part of my religion,’ I feel like if you are a public officer you should be educated enough to know.”
Karim stated that she hopes that as a result of the incident public officials will be more educated about different religions and different people so that others’ rights are not violated.
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim denied entrance to court
Friday, June 15, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - MISSOURI: WE WILL SUE IN ORDER TO GET A SATELLITE JIHAD OFFICE BUILT
Islamic center seeks court order
CLAYTON — The Islamic Community Center has asked the St. Louis County Circuit Court to order the county to allow a community center building near Mehlville High School.
Earlier this year, the St. Louis County Council denied the organization permission to construct a 25,000-square-foot structure on the northeast corner of Lemay Ferry and Buckley roads. The current center is at 4666 Lansdowne Avenue in St. Louis.
County Counselor Patricia Redington on Thursday said the county was reviewing the suit and would file a response later.
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamic center seeks court order
CLAYTON — The Islamic Community Center has asked the St. Louis County Circuit Court to order the county to allow a community center building near Mehlville High School.
Earlier this year, the St. Louis County Council denied the organization permission to construct a 25,000-square-foot structure on the northeast corner of Lemay Ferry and Buckley roads. The current center is at 4666 Lansdowne Avenue in St. Louis.
County Counselor Patricia Redington on Thursday said the county was reviewing the suit and would file a response later.
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamic center seeks court order
Thursday, June 14, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.K.: PRISONERS OF BRITISH FORCES, DETAINED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, CAN SUE THE MILITARY IN U.K. COURTS - - - THE INSANITY GROWS
Tortured Iraqis free to sue UK for millions
Prisoners detained by British forces anywhere in the world can sue the Ministry of Defence, Law Lords have ruled.
They will be able to bring claims under the Human Rights Act, which covers everything from torture to racial discrimination.
Military insiders fear the ruling - which followed years of wrangling - could unleash a torrent of cases, adding to the pressure faced by UK forces in global trouble-spots.
Law Lords ruled that Labour's Human Rights Act - which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law - extends to British forces outside Europe where a suspect is in custody.
The test case they considered involved the death of Iraqi hotel receptionist Baha Mousa.
He died in British army custody in Basra in 2003 having allegedly been beaten for more than 30 hours. A post-mortem examination revealed 93 separate injuries.
His family used human rights laws to demand the MoD hold a full public inquiry and won their case at the High Court and Court of Appeal.
But Government lawyers appealed to the Lords, claiming Mr Mousa's death in Iraq was not covered by the Human Rights Act.
The Lords ruled in favour of Mr Mousa's fama judge. MoD insiders fear this could become a "magnet" for anti-war campaigners and achieve little.
But senior serving and retired senior officers are more concerned over the wider implications of enforcing human rights laws on the frontline.
Admiral Sir Alan West, who retired as head of the Royal Navy last year, said: "I am very wary of making it even harder for our servicemen and women in terms of what I've called legal encirclement.
"I have no doubt whatsoever that we should operate within a proper legal framework, and I believe pretty well always we've done that.
"But I am concerned that there are more and more constraints on our people, who are trying to do their duty as best they can.
"We shouldn't be in a position where we're asking men to risk their lives, to take important decisions very rapidly while being terribly worried all the time that anything they do may be taken much later and pored over in the cold light of day, in legal case lasting weeks and weeks."
"Do we want to do something like an opt-out? Of course we must always act within the constraints of the law, but I do wonder whether we might need to look at this more closely."
Sir Alan said Britain's existing court martial system worked well and questioned whether it needed to be changed.
One senior serving Army officer who recently commanded a formation in southern Iraq said he was very concerned by the ruling.
He added: "Increasingly we face a situation where events on operations, where soldiers have to make split-second decisions, are likely to be judged and argued over years later by civilian lawyers with no understanding of operations, using human rights laws which weren't designed for this purpose."
Other European countries, including France, Spain and Portugal, specifically exempted their armed forces before they signed the Human Rights Convention.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Tortured Iraqis free to sue UK for millions
Prisoners detained by British forces anywhere in the world can sue the Ministry of Defence, Law Lords have ruled.
They will be able to bring claims under the Human Rights Act, which covers everything from torture to racial discrimination.
Military insiders fear the ruling - which followed years of wrangling - could unleash a torrent of cases, adding to the pressure faced by UK forces in global trouble-spots.
Law Lords ruled that Labour's Human Rights Act - which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law - extends to British forces outside Europe where a suspect is in custody.
The test case they considered involved the death of Iraqi hotel receptionist Baha Mousa.
He died in British army custody in Basra in 2003 having allegedly been beaten for more than 30 hours. A post-mortem examination revealed 93 separate injuries.
His family used human rights laws to demand the MoD hold a full public inquiry and won their case at the High Court and Court of Appeal.
But Government lawyers appealed to the Lords, claiming Mr Mousa's death in Iraq was not covered by the Human Rights Act.
The Lords ruled in favour of Mr Mousa's fama judge. MoD insiders fear this could become a "magnet" for anti-war campaigners and achieve little.
But senior serving and retired senior officers are more concerned over the wider implications of enforcing human rights laws on the frontline.
Admiral Sir Alan West, who retired as head of the Royal Navy last year, said: "I am very wary of making it even harder for our servicemen and women in terms of what I've called legal encirclement.
"I have no doubt whatsoever that we should operate within a proper legal framework, and I believe pretty well always we've done that.
"But I am concerned that there are more and more constraints on our people, who are trying to do their duty as best they can.
"We shouldn't be in a position where we're asking men to risk their lives, to take important decisions very rapidly while being terribly worried all the time that anything they do may be taken much later and pored over in the cold light of day, in legal case lasting weeks and weeks."
"Do we want to do something like an opt-out? Of course we must always act within the constraints of the law, but I do wonder whether we might need to look at this more closely."
Sir Alan said Britain's existing court martial system worked well and questioned whether it needed to be changed.
One senior serving Army officer who recently commanded a formation in southern Iraq said he was very concerned by the ruling.
He added: "Increasingly we face a situation where events on operations, where soldiers have to make split-second decisions, are likely to be judged and argued over years later by civilian lawyers with no understanding of operations, using human rights laws which weren't designed for this purpose."
Other European countries, including France, Spain and Portugal, specifically exempted their armed forces before they signed the Human Rights Convention.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Tortured Iraqis free to sue UK for millions
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A.: DANIEL PIPES WRITES ABOUT MOSLEMS & THEIR JIHAD VIA LAWSUIT
Islamists in the Courtroom
By Daniel Pipes
The decision last week by the Islamic Society of Boston to drop its lawsuit against 17 defendants, including counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson, gives reason to step back to consider radical Islam's legal ambitions.
The envisioned $22 million Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.
The lawsuit came about because, soon after ground was broken in November 2002 for the ISB's $22 million Islamic center, the media and several non-profits began asking questions about three main topics: why the ISB paid the city of Boston less than half the appraised value of the land it acquired; why a city of Boston employee, who is also an ISB board member, fund raised on the Boston taxpayer's tab for the center while traveling in the Middle East; and the ISB's connections to radical Islam.
Under this barrage of criticism, the ISB in May 2005 turned tables on its critics with a lawsuit accusing them of defamation and conspiring to violate its civil rights through "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive the Plaintiffs … of their basic rights of free association and the free exercise of religion."
...
Why should this dispute matter to anyone beyond the litigants?
The Islamist movement has two wings, one violent and one lawful, which operate apart but often reinforce each other. Their effective coordination was on display in Britain last August, when the Islamist establishment seized on the Heathrow airport plot to destroy planes over the Atlantic Ocean as an opening for it to press the Blair government for changes in policy.
A similar one-two punch stifles the open discussion of Muhammad, the Koran, Islam, and Muslims.
...
Such lawsuits, including the ISB's, are often predatory, filed without serious expectations of winning, but initiated to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. Such plaintiffs seek less to win than to wear down the researchers and analysts who, even when they win, pay heavily in time and money. Two examples:
...
This retreat notwithstanding, Islamists clearly hope, as Douglas Farah notes, that lawsuits will cause researchers and analysts to "get tired of the cost and the hassle and simply shut up." Just last month, KinderUSA sued Matthew Levitt, a specialist on terrorist funding, and two organizations, for his assertion that KinderUSA funds Hamas. One must assume that Islamists are planning future legal ordeals for their critics.
Which brings me to an announcement: The Middle East Forum is establishing a "Legal Project" to protect counterterror and anti-Islamist researchers and analysts. Their vital work must not be preempted by legal intimidation. In the event of litigation, they need to be armed with sufficient funding and the finest legal representation.
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamists in the Courtroom
2) Daniel Pipes.org
3) The Middle East Forum
By Daniel Pipes
The decision last week by the Islamic Society of Boston to drop its lawsuit against 17 defendants, including counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson, gives reason to step back to consider radical Islam's legal ambitions.
The envisioned $22 million Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.
The lawsuit came about because, soon after ground was broken in November 2002 for the ISB's $22 million Islamic center, the media and several non-profits began asking questions about three main topics: why the ISB paid the city of Boston less than half the appraised value of the land it acquired; why a city of Boston employee, who is also an ISB board member, fund raised on the Boston taxpayer's tab for the center while traveling in the Middle East; and the ISB's connections to radical Islam.
Under this barrage of criticism, the ISB in May 2005 turned tables on its critics with a lawsuit accusing them of defamation and conspiring to violate its civil rights through "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive the Plaintiffs … of their basic rights of free association and the free exercise of religion."
...
Why should this dispute matter to anyone beyond the litigants?
The Islamist movement has two wings, one violent and one lawful, which operate apart but often reinforce each other. Their effective coordination was on display in Britain last August, when the Islamist establishment seized on the Heathrow airport plot to destroy planes over the Atlantic Ocean as an opening for it to press the Blair government for changes in policy.
A similar one-two punch stifles the open discussion of Muhammad, the Koran, Islam, and Muslims.
...
Such lawsuits, including the ISB's, are often predatory, filed without serious expectations of winning, but initiated to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. Such plaintiffs seek less to win than to wear down the researchers and analysts who, even when they win, pay heavily in time and money. Two examples:
Khalid bin Mahfouz v Rachel Ehrenfeld: Ehrenfeld wrote that Bin Mahfouz had financial links to Al-Qaeda and Hamas. He sued her in January 2004 in a plaintiff-friendly British court. He won by default and was awarded £30,000 and an apology.
Iqbal Unus v Rita Katz: His house searched in the course of a American government
operation, code-named Green Quest, Unus sued Ms Katz, a non-governmental
counterterrorist expert, charging in March 2004 that she was responsible for the
raid. Mr. Unus lost and had to pay Ms Katz's court costs.
...
This retreat notwithstanding, Islamists clearly hope, as Douglas Farah notes, that lawsuits will cause researchers and analysts to "get tired of the cost and the hassle and simply shut up." Just last month, KinderUSA sued Matthew Levitt, a specialist on terrorist funding, and two organizations, for his assertion that KinderUSA funds Hamas. One must assume that Islamists are planning future legal ordeals for their critics.
Which brings me to an announcement: The Middle East Forum is establishing a "Legal Project" to protect counterterror and anti-Islamist researchers and analysts. Their vital work must not be preempted by legal intimidation. In the event of litigation, they need to be armed with sufficient funding and the finest legal representation.
Pertinent Links:
1) Islamists in the Courtroom
2) Daniel Pipes.org
3) The Middle East Forum
Monday, June 04, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A.: HERE IT IS LADIES & GENTLEMEN: USING THE 1ST AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENT SHARI'AH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
I am sure that the A.C.L.U. is working on lawsuits to make all kinds of shari'ah endorsed islamic practices legal in the United States via 1st Amendment fights...
Our very own laws being used against us in order to implement shari'ah/islam in the United States, how ironic...
Are there any legal Beagals that are working on countering this jihad via lawsuit?!?!?
Multiple wives often misunderstood, Muslims say
By CHLOE JOHNSON
While the practice is not legal in the United States, polygamy is accepted in some parts of the world and permitted under certain circumstances in some religions, including Islam.
Abu-Ibrahim Mohamed, a member of the Islamic Society of the Seacoast Area in Dover, said Muslims look to their faith for guidance in life, including a perspective on polygamy. "Islam presents a unique world view and a complete way of life," he said in an e-mail to the newspaper.
Muslims look upon marriage as a scared institution and a serious commitment, he said. Polygamy is a highly regulated contract that multiplies the vows of marriage. So it's an additional challenge for the faithful, he said.
"Many times, polygamy is looked at as man's right to legally marry more than one woman," he said. "This is a totally flawed way of looking at the matter."
He said people should consider looking at it as a woman's right to be cared for and provided for, and to have the full legal rights of a wife.
The Quran regulates polygamy, like other aspects of life, he said. There are conditions that make polygamy permitted at times and prohibited at others, and recommended for some and not others depending on the circumstances, he said. The issue is misunderstood by many, even some Muslims.
Stereotypes also cause misunderstanding. This has led many Muslims in the United States to take a defensive or sometimes apologetic approach resulting in more inaccurate representations, he said.
Mohamed said many Muslim Americans would agree that the outlawing of polygamy is denying certain citizens their full freedom of religion.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Multiple wives often misunderstood, Muslims say
Our very own laws being used against us in order to implement shari'ah/islam in the United States, how ironic...
Are there any legal Beagals that are working on countering this jihad via lawsuit?!?!?
Multiple wives often misunderstood, Muslims say
By CHLOE JOHNSON
While the practice is not legal in the United States, polygamy is accepted in some parts of the world and permitted under certain circumstances in some religions, including Islam.
Abu-Ibrahim Mohamed, a member of the Islamic Society of the Seacoast Area in Dover, said Muslims look to their faith for guidance in life, including a perspective on polygamy. "Islam presents a unique world view and a complete way of life," he said in an e-mail to the newspaper.
Muslims look upon marriage as a scared institution and a serious commitment, he said. Polygamy is a highly regulated contract that multiplies the vows of marriage. So it's an additional challenge for the faithful, he said.
"Many times, polygamy is looked at as man's right to legally marry more than one woman," he said. "This is a totally flawed way of looking at the matter."
He said people should consider looking at it as a woman's right to be cared for and provided for, and to have the full legal rights of a wife.
The Quran regulates polygamy, like other aspects of life, he said. There are conditions that make polygamy permitted at times and prohibited at others, and recommended for some and not others depending on the circumstances, he said. The issue is misunderstood by many, even some Muslims.
Stereotypes also cause misunderstanding. This has led many Muslims in the United States to take a defensive or sometimes apologetic approach resulting in more inaccurate representations, he said.
Mohamed said many Muslim Americans would agree that the outlawing of polygamy is denying certain citizens their full freedom of religion.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Multiple wives often misunderstood, Muslims say
Sunday, June 03, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - ARIZONA: "HEAD TO TOE BAG JIHAD" AGAINST ALAMO REN-A-CAR, STUPID DHIMMIS AGREE WITH THE JIHADIST
Alamo Rent a Car Must Pay Muslim Woman $288G for Banning Scarf
PHOENIX — A federal jury in Phoenix decided that Alamo Rent A Car must pay a Muslim woman $288,000 for firing her for wearing a head scarf during the holy month of Ramadan.
Bilan Nur was fired just four months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. She had worked at the company's Phoenix offices since 1999.
Then 22, Nur complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sued the company for what it called a "post 9-11 backlash." The suit says she was fired in violation of the Civil Rights Act for exercising her religious beliefs.
A federal judge agreed last year, ruling that Alamo was guilty of illegal discrimination and did not try to accommodate her.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Alamo Rent a Car Must Pay Muslim Woman $288G for Banning Scarf
PHOENIX — A federal jury in Phoenix decided that Alamo Rent A Car must pay a Muslim woman $288,000 for firing her for wearing a head scarf during the holy month of Ramadan.
Bilan Nur was fired just four months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. She had worked at the company's Phoenix offices since 1999.
Then 22, Nur complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which sued the company for what it called a "post 9-11 backlash." The suit says she was fired in violation of the Civil Rights Act for exercising her religious beliefs.
A federal judge agreed last year, ruling that Alamo was guilty of illegal discrimination and did not try to accommodate her.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Alamo Rent a Car Must Pay Muslim Woman $288G for Banning Scarf
Monday, May 21, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - CALIFORNIA: "HAMAS: POLITICS, CHARITY & TERRORISM IN THE SERVICE OF JIHAD"
Charity sues ex-Bush official
KinderUSA and its L.A. chairwoman seek a libel judgment against a book that says the Islamic nonprofit helped fund terrorists.
By Greg Krikorian, Times Staff Writer
A former Bush administration official has been sued for libel by a U.S.-based Islamic charity for alleging in a book that the organization has helped fund Middle East terrorists.
The lawsuit — filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Kids in Need of Development, Education and Relief and its chairwoman, Dr. Laila Al-Marayati of Los Angeles — accuses Matthew Levitt of falsely linking the charity to extremists. It also names Yale University Press and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as defendants for their role in publishing the book last year.
Levitt, deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department until earlier this year, has been a government witness in several federal terrorism cases and is a senior fellow at the institute.
Spokespeople for the defendants said the allegations were without merit. The Dallas-based charity, known as KinderUSA, was founded five years ago by a group of physicians and humanitarian relief workers with the goal of bringing educational, health and rehabilitation programs into war zones and areas of disaster, according to its lawsuit and website. To date, it has received and distributed about $4 million to $5 million overseas.
The lawsuit, filed April 26, contends that Levitt's book, "Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad," inaccurately portrays the organization as an accomplice to terrorism, suggesting that it has funded Hamas and has connections to Al Qaeda.
In one passage cited in the lawsuit, Levitt links KinderUSA to another Texas-based charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which has been closed by the federal government and is now fighting government allegations in Dallas that it is connected to Hamas.
"Even after the closure of the Holy Land Foundation in 2001, other U.S.-based charities continue to fund Hamas," the book says. "One organization that has appeared to rise out of the ashes of the [Holy Land Foundation] is KinderUSA."
In court documents, Levitt has been listed as a potential government witness in the Holy Land trial, which is to begin in July.
Levitt's book also states — falsely, the lawsuit alleges — that "the formation of KinderUSA highlights an increasingly common trend: banned charities continuing to operate by incorporating under new names in response to designation as terrorist entities or in an effort to evade attention. This trend is also seen with groups raising money for Al Qaeda."
Al-Marayati could not be reached for comment. Her attorney alleged that Levitt's book makes "spurious and unsubstantiated" suggestions that the charity funds terrorism.
Attorney John P. Kilroy said KinderUSA not only has been designated as a lawful charity by the IRS but has twice been a guest of the Treasury Department's counter-terrorism unit to participate in conferences. He also noted that Al-Marayati has been honored by the government for her work on an international health panel.
"This [book] is all part of the witch hunt against Muslim charities in this country … where all Muslim charities that do international work are considered suspect," Kilroy said.
...
and
Quick Takes: Purdue Renews Investigation, NCAA Punishes Temple, Yale Press Sued, Tufts Magazine Sanctioned, Medical Schools Get Poor Grades, New Reason for Newspaper Theft, Community Colleges and Teacher Ed, Gender Gap Narrows for UK Faculty
...
Yale University Press is being sued for libel in connection with the publication of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, according to The New Haven Independent. KinderUSA says that it is a legitimate charity and was unfairly discussed in the book. The group’s suit charges, among other things, that the Yale press did not do any fact-checking for the book — a charge denied by Yale officials.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Charity sues ex-Bush official
2) Quick Takes: Purdue Renews Investigation, NCAA Punishes Temple, Yale Press Sued, Tufts Magazine Sanctioned, Medical Schools Get Poor Grades, New Reason for Newspaper Theft, Community Colleges and Teacher Ed, Gender Gap Narrows for UK Faculty
KinderUSA and its L.A. chairwoman seek a libel judgment against a book that says the Islamic nonprofit helped fund terrorists.
By Greg Krikorian, Times Staff Writer
A former Bush administration official has been sued for libel by a U.S.-based Islamic charity for alleging in a book that the organization has helped fund Middle East terrorists.
The lawsuit — filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Kids in Need of Development, Education and Relief and its chairwoman, Dr. Laila Al-Marayati of Los Angeles — accuses Matthew Levitt of falsely linking the charity to extremists. It also names Yale University Press and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as defendants for their role in publishing the book last year.
Levitt, deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department until earlier this year, has been a government witness in several federal terrorism cases and is a senior fellow at the institute.
Spokespeople for the defendants said the allegations were without merit. The Dallas-based charity, known as KinderUSA, was founded five years ago by a group of physicians and humanitarian relief workers with the goal of bringing educational, health and rehabilitation programs into war zones and areas of disaster, according to its lawsuit and website. To date, it has received and distributed about $4 million to $5 million overseas.
The lawsuit, filed April 26, contends that Levitt's book, "Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad," inaccurately portrays the organization as an accomplice to terrorism, suggesting that it has funded Hamas and has connections to Al Qaeda.
In one passage cited in the lawsuit, Levitt links KinderUSA to another Texas-based charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which has been closed by the federal government and is now fighting government allegations in Dallas that it is connected to Hamas.
"Even after the closure of the Holy Land Foundation in 2001, other U.S.-based charities continue to fund Hamas," the book says. "One organization that has appeared to rise out of the ashes of the [Holy Land Foundation] is KinderUSA."
In court documents, Levitt has been listed as a potential government witness in the Holy Land trial, which is to begin in July.
Levitt's book also states — falsely, the lawsuit alleges — that "the formation of KinderUSA highlights an increasingly common trend: banned charities continuing to operate by incorporating under new names in response to designation as terrorist entities or in an effort to evade attention. This trend is also seen with groups raising money for Al Qaeda."
Al-Marayati could not be reached for comment. Her attorney alleged that Levitt's book makes "spurious and unsubstantiated" suggestions that the charity funds terrorism.
Attorney John P. Kilroy said KinderUSA not only has been designated as a lawful charity by the IRS but has twice been a guest of the Treasury Department's counter-terrorism unit to participate in conferences. He also noted that Al-Marayati has been honored by the government for her work on an international health panel.
"This [book] is all part of the witch hunt against Muslim charities in this country … where all Muslim charities that do international work are considered suspect," Kilroy said.
...
and
Quick Takes: Purdue Renews Investigation, NCAA Punishes Temple, Yale Press Sued, Tufts Magazine Sanctioned, Medical Schools Get Poor Grades, New Reason for Newspaper Theft, Community Colleges and Teacher Ed, Gender Gap Narrows for UK Faculty
...
Yale University Press is being sued for libel in connection with the publication of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, according to The New Haven Independent. KinderUSA says that it is a legitimate charity and was unfairly discussed in the book. The group’s suit charges, among other things, that the Yale press did not do any fact-checking for the book — a charge denied by Yale officials.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Charity sues ex-Bush official
2) Quick Takes: Purdue Renews Investigation, NCAA Punishes Temple, Yale Press Sued, Tufts Magazine Sanctioned, Medical Schools Get Poor Grades, New Reason for Newspaper Theft, Community Colleges and Teacher Ed, Gender Gap Narrows for UK Faculty
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - MINNESOTA: CAIR'S "JIHAD BY LAWSUIT" HARMS SECURITY
CAIR's 'Flying Imams' Suit Harms Security, Public Vigilance, Experts Say
Kevin Mooney
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Litigation threats against vigilant citizens who report suspicious activity could impede intelligence-gathering efforts and empower terrorists, counter-terrorism experts and security officials warn.
Exhibit A: A lawsuit filed against unnamed "John Doe" defendants who expressed alarm over the allegedly suspicious behavior of six Muslim imams on a U.S. Airways plane last November. The clerics were removed from the plane before the Minneapolis to Phoenix flight departed, as a result of multiple reports from concerned fellow passengers.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is suing U.S. Airways and Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission on behalf of the imams.
The suit, Shqeirat, et.al v. U.S. Airways Group, also cites unnamed "John Does" described as "passengers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal."
CAIR attorney Omar Mohammedi has said the litigation only targets individuals who knowingly made false claims with the intent to discriminate against the imams, in contrast to those who made reports in "good faith." CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad has argued the suit is designed to protect religious and civil rights.
But Leon Laylagian, vice president of the Passenger Cargo Security Group, told Cybercast News Service the Muslims behaved in a manner that was "unusual regardless of religion."
Laylagian also said there was a very real possibility that the clerics' actions were a deliberate, planned tactic designed to diminish the public's motivation and willingness to respond when they observe unsettling or suspicious activity.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) CAIR's 'Flying Imams' Suit Harms Security, Public Vigilance, Experts Say
Kevin Mooney
Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - Litigation threats against vigilant citizens who report suspicious activity could impede intelligence-gathering efforts and empower terrorists, counter-terrorism experts and security officials warn.
Exhibit A: A lawsuit filed against unnamed "John Doe" defendants who expressed alarm over the allegedly suspicious behavior of six Muslim imams on a U.S. Airways plane last November. The clerics were removed from the plane before the Minneapolis to Phoenix flight departed, as a result of multiple reports from concerned fellow passengers.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is suing U.S. Airways and Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission on behalf of the imams.
The suit, Shqeirat, et.al v. U.S. Airways Group, also cites unnamed "John Does" described as "passengers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal."
CAIR attorney Omar Mohammedi has said the litigation only targets individuals who knowingly made false claims with the intent to discriminate against the imams, in contrast to those who made reports in "good faith." CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad has argued the suit is designed to protect religious and civil rights.
But Leon Laylagian, vice president of the Passenger Cargo Security Group, told Cybercast News Service the Muslims behaved in a manner that was "unusual regardless of religion."
Laylagian also said there was a very real possibility that the clerics' actions were a deliberate, planned tactic designed to diminish the public's motivation and willingness to respond when they observe unsettling or suspicious activity.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) CAIR's 'Flying Imams' Suit Harms Security, Public Vigilance, Experts Say
Saturday, April 14, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - INDIANA: MOSLEMS PUTTING PRESSURE ON MAYOR OF MERRYVILLE
Muslim groups seek to pressure hotel developer
Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS - Several groups are calling on Mayor Bart Peterson to pressure the developer of a 1,000-room downtown hotel overs concerns its policies discriminate against Muslim women.
The Muslim Alliance of Indiana, the Islamic Society of North America and a union representing hotel workers have asked Peterson to arrange a meeting with White Lodgings Services Corp., which was sued in Kentucky after four Muslim women said the company would not hire them unless they worked without wearing traditional head coverings called hijabs.
Merrillville-based White Lodgings was selected last year to lead a partnership to build the $250 million hotel that is part of the city's bid for the 2011 Super Bowl.
The Muslim groups and Unite Here! asked Peterson to withhold more than $48.5 million in subsidies until White Lodgings meets its demands, including establishing diversity training and an anti-discrimination policy for its workers and allowing employees to organize in unions.
"We're not against this deal or a subsidy," said Shariq Siddiqui, executive director of the Muslim Alliance. "But taxpayers have a say about how the city spends our money. We're saying if you want to get this incentive, you have to play by the rules of this country."
The Associated Press left a message Friday seeking comment from White Lodgings.
Peterson said he is willing to discuss the issue with both sides.
"A private business has a right within the law to do business as it sees fit," Peterson said. "On the flip side, when you're doing business with a public entity, the public has the right to ask questions about who we're partnering with."
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim groups seek to pressure hotel developer
Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS - Several groups are calling on Mayor Bart Peterson to pressure the developer of a 1,000-room downtown hotel overs concerns its policies discriminate against Muslim women.
The Muslim Alliance of Indiana, the Islamic Society of North America and a union representing hotel workers have asked Peterson to arrange a meeting with White Lodgings Services Corp., which was sued in Kentucky after four Muslim women said the company would not hire them unless they worked without wearing traditional head coverings called hijabs.
Merrillville-based White Lodgings was selected last year to lead a partnership to build the $250 million hotel that is part of the city's bid for the 2011 Super Bowl.
The Muslim groups and Unite Here! asked Peterson to withhold more than $48.5 million in subsidies until White Lodgings meets its demands, including establishing diversity training and an anti-discrimination policy for its workers and allowing employees to organize in unions.
"We're not against this deal or a subsidy," said Shariq Siddiqui, executive director of the Muslim Alliance. "But taxpayers have a say about how the city spends our money. We're saying if you want to get this incentive, you have to play by the rules of this country."
The Associated Press left a message Friday seeking comment from White Lodgings.
Peterson said he is willing to discuss the issue with both sides.
"A private business has a right within the law to do business as it sees fit," Peterson said. "On the flip side, when you're doing business with a public entity, the public has the right to ask questions about who we're partnering with."
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim groups seek to pressure hotel developer
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - MARYLAND: I WAS HUMILIATED, NOW I AM SUING THE HOSPITAL FOR $30 MILLION
Muslim's Lawsuit Alleges Humiliation
Aim Is to Increase Tolerance, Attorney Says
By Philip RuckerWashington Post Staff Writer
...
I am not going to bother posting any pieces of the article, read it for yourself...JIHAD VIA LAWSUIT continues and is very successful...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim's Lawsuit Alleges Humiliation
Aim Is to Increase Tolerance, Attorney Says
By Philip RuckerWashington Post Staff Writer
...
I am not going to bother posting any pieces of the article, read it for yourself...JIHAD VIA LAWSUIT continues and is very successful...
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim's Lawsuit Alleges Humiliation
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - MICHIGAN: MOSLEMS SUES JUDGE THAT TOLD HER TO REMOVE HER JIHAD WEAR
Muslim woman told to remove veil in court files lawsuit
by Paul Egan
The Detroit News
A Muslim woman who was told she had to remove her veil if she wanted to testify in 31st District Court in Hamtramck filed a federal lawsuit today against the judge who made the ruling.
Ginnah Muhammad filed the complaint against Judge Paul Paruk, alleging he violated her religious rights and denied her equal access to the courts.
Muhammad had gone to small claims court last October in a dispute with a car rental company when Paruk said she could not testify unless she removed her veil, the lawsuit alleges.
"If in fact, you do not wish to do it, then I cannot go forward with your case and I have to dismiss your case," Paruk told the woman, according to a transcript attached to the complaint filed by Dearborn Heights lawyer Nabih Ayad.
Muhammad refused and Paruk dismissed the case, the suit alleges.
Paruk did not immediately return a phone call to his chambers.
"I'm a human being and I wanted to come to court to get justice," Muhammad said at a news conference today outside the federal courthouse in Detroit.
"When I walked out, I just really felt empty, like the courts didn't care about me."
Muhammad said if Paruk does not understand religious rights he should be removed from the bench.
Her litigation with Enterprise Rent-A-Car continues, because the car rental company later brought a complaint against Muhammad for damage allegedly suffered by a car she rented.
A hearing in that case is set for April 18. Ayad said he wants U.S. District Judge John Feikens to order a stay in the case. Ayad said he will bring a motion in 31st District Court asking Paruk to recuse himself from hearing it.
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim woman told to remove veil in court files lawsuit
by Paul Egan
The Detroit News
A Muslim woman who was told she had to remove her veil if she wanted to testify in 31st District Court in Hamtramck filed a federal lawsuit today against the judge who made the ruling.
Ginnah Muhammad filed the complaint against Judge Paul Paruk, alleging he violated her religious rights and denied her equal access to the courts.
Muhammad had gone to small claims court last October in a dispute with a car rental company when Paruk said she could not testify unless she removed her veil, the lawsuit alleges.
"If in fact, you do not wish to do it, then I cannot go forward with your case and I have to dismiss your case," Paruk told the woman, according to a transcript attached to the complaint filed by Dearborn Heights lawyer Nabih Ayad.
Muhammad refused and Paruk dismissed the case, the suit alleges.
Paruk did not immediately return a phone call to his chambers.
"I'm a human being and I wanted to come to court to get justice," Muhammad said at a news conference today outside the federal courthouse in Detroit.
"When I walked out, I just really felt empty, like the courts didn't care about me."
Muhammad said if Paruk does not understand religious rights he should be removed from the bench.
Her litigation with Enterprise Rent-A-Car continues, because the car rental company later brought a complaint against Muhammad for damage allegedly suffered by a car she rented.
A hearing in that case is set for April 18. Ayad said he wants U.S. District Judge John Feikens to order a stay in the case. Ayad said he will bring a motion in 31st District Court asking Paruk to recuse himself from hearing it.
Pertinent Links:
1) Muslim woman told to remove veil in court files lawsuit
Friday, March 16, 2007
DAR AL HARB - U.S.A. - MASSACHUSETTS: JIHAD VIA LAWSUIT - - - MOSLEMS SUING TO SILENCE CRITICS
Boston: Islamic group sues scholar for libeling Muslims
By MATT RAND,
JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
Unable to shake off allegations of connections to Egyptian Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) has done the Massachusetts equivalent of calling in the Marines: it has summoned the trial lawyers.
Qaradawi, considered to be a supporter of suicide bombings, is being sued in a Boston court for libel against Muslims. And the Islamic Society of Boston has not only sued an "Islamic cleric, a Christian political science professor and the Jewish daughter of Holocaust survivors," says The David Project, a Jewish group that educates and trains students and the Jewish community about Israel that is a defendant in the lawsuit, along with The Boston Herald, Investigative Project head Steve Emerson and Fox 25 News. They have also twice subpoenaed the Anti-Defamation League, which declined comment.
Photocopies of Islamic Society of Boston IRS tax returns from 1998, 1999, and 2000 which list Qaradawi as a trustee are included as evidence in the statements of several of the defendants being sued for libel. At the same time, notarized 1993 documents from the City of Cambridge also list Qaradawi as a trustee.
Lawyers on behalf of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in late February filed "friends of the court" briefs for the Islamic Society of Boston, accusing the defendants of seeking to "demonize and vilify" US Muslims. The American Jewish Congress was one step ahead, having filed a "friend of the court" brief for the David Project and other defendants last October.
At the same time Georgetown University scholar John Esposito filed his own affidavit which sought to distance the Islamic society of Boston from radical Islamic groups, saying that the defendants "misleadingly attempt to suggest a link" between the ISB and Wahhabism.
Suggesting he sought to set the record straight on the Islamic Society of Boston, Esposito goes on to say that he intends to correct the "gross mis-characterizations" cited by the defendants "...as their apparent excuse for attacking the ISB [Islamic Society of Boston] and its leadership."
However, Emerson, who in his written statement to the court worried that Boston might be looking the other way when it came to Islamic extremists, was the subject of much of Esposito's negative comments.
Emerson wrote in his affidavit that he was concerned that "Boston public officials" were worried "they may be subsidizing the significant expansion of a particularly extremist and minority sect of Islam."
...
David Project Welcomes American Jewish Committee Criticism of Islamic Society of Boston's Lawsuit
BOSTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The David Project, a non-
profit educational organization which combats anti-Semitism and other forms
of bigotry, today welcomed the American Jewish Committee (AJC)'s public
criticism of the lawsuit filed by the Islamic Society of Boston against an
Islamic cleric, a Christian political science professor, the Jewish
daughter of Holocaust survivors and various non-profit organizations,
journalists and citizens, including the David Project. The AJC statement
was posted on the AJC website this morning, at http://www.ajc.org.
"The American Jewish Committee is a preeminent international
organization with a history of fighting for pluralism, tolerance and dialog
among people of different religions and ethnic backgrounds," said Charles
Jacobs, President of The David Project. "It has richly earned its
reputation for progressive values. Like the David Project, it has worked
closely with moderate Muslims to build on the common ground that exists
between people of different religions who deal with each other in good
faith. The AJC has done groundbreaking research on the nature and extent of
Islamic anti-Semitism. Like the David Project, it has warned against the
extremely serious threat posed abroad and at home by radical Islam,
including support for extremism."
"No organization has worked harder to promote genuine dialog among
people of different faiths than the American Jewish Committee." Jacobs
stated. "No organization has more vigorously worked for civil rights or
with more devotion for the cause of tolerance."
"That is why it is a matter of national significance," Jacobs said,
"that the national leadership of the AJC has condemned the Islamic Society
of Boston's lawsuit. It is a lawsuit brought against citizens who in our
view raised important, legitimate, and well-substantiated concerns about
the past and present leaders of the ISB, and about the evidence that
certain of those individuals have been supportive of extremism."
Jacobs said, "The ISB, funded with millions of dollars from Saudi
Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East, appears to seek to frighten
journalists and citizens alike with this lawsuit, using its immense
financial power to chill the most fundamental exercise of freedom of
speech."
"While apparently seeking to bully critics on one hand," Jacobs said,
"the ISB invokes the platitudes of 'dialog' and 'reconciliation' on the
other. While professing to be interested in transparency, on one hand, it
retaliates against journalists who write critical articles about it, on the
other."
"The AJC is no stranger to important battles of principle, even ones
that may be unpopular in certain quarters," said Jacobs. "That is why the
David Project is especially pleased to have its support in defending itself
against the Islamic Society lawsuit, and the dangers that such a lawsuit
presents."
Pertinent Links:
1) Boston: Islamic group sues scholar for libeling Muslims
2) David Project Welcomes American Jewish Committee Criticism of Islamic Society of Boston's Lawsuit
By MATT RAND,
JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
Unable to shake off allegations of connections to Egyptian Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) has done the Massachusetts equivalent of calling in the Marines: it has summoned the trial lawyers.
Qaradawi, considered to be a supporter of suicide bombings, is being sued in a Boston court for libel against Muslims. And the Islamic Society of Boston has not only sued an "Islamic cleric, a Christian political science professor and the Jewish daughter of Holocaust survivors," says The David Project, a Jewish group that educates and trains students and the Jewish community about Israel that is a defendant in the lawsuit, along with The Boston Herald, Investigative Project head Steve Emerson and Fox 25 News. They have also twice subpoenaed the Anti-Defamation League, which declined comment.
Photocopies of Islamic Society of Boston IRS tax returns from 1998, 1999, and 2000 which list Qaradawi as a trustee are included as evidence in the statements of several of the defendants being sued for libel. At the same time, notarized 1993 documents from the City of Cambridge also list Qaradawi as a trustee.
Lawyers on behalf of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in late February filed "friends of the court" briefs for the Islamic Society of Boston, accusing the defendants of seeking to "demonize and vilify" US Muslims. The American Jewish Congress was one step ahead, having filed a "friend of the court" brief for the David Project and other defendants last October.
At the same time Georgetown University scholar John Esposito filed his own affidavit which sought to distance the Islamic society of Boston from radical Islamic groups, saying that the defendants "misleadingly attempt to suggest a link" between the ISB and Wahhabism.
Suggesting he sought to set the record straight on the Islamic Society of Boston, Esposito goes on to say that he intends to correct the "gross mis-characterizations" cited by the defendants "...as their apparent excuse for attacking the ISB [Islamic Society of Boston] and its leadership."
However, Emerson, who in his written statement to the court worried that Boston might be looking the other way when it came to Islamic extremists, was the subject of much of Esposito's negative comments.
Emerson wrote in his affidavit that he was concerned that "Boston public officials" were worried "they may be subsidizing the significant expansion of a particularly extremist and minority sect of Islam."
...
David Project Welcomes American Jewish Committee Criticism of Islamic Society of Boston's Lawsuit
BOSTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The David Project, a non-
profit educational organization which combats anti-Semitism and other forms
of bigotry, today welcomed the American Jewish Committee (AJC)'s public
criticism of the lawsuit filed by the Islamic Society of Boston against an
Islamic cleric, a Christian political science professor, the Jewish
daughter of Holocaust survivors and various non-profit organizations,
journalists and citizens, including the David Project. The AJC statement
was posted on the AJC website this morning, at http://www.ajc.org.
"The American Jewish Committee is a preeminent international
organization with a history of fighting for pluralism, tolerance and dialog
among people of different religions and ethnic backgrounds," said Charles
Jacobs, President of The David Project. "It has richly earned its
reputation for progressive values. Like the David Project, it has worked
closely with moderate Muslims to build on the common ground that exists
between people of different religions who deal with each other in good
faith. The AJC has done groundbreaking research on the nature and extent of
Islamic anti-Semitism. Like the David Project, it has warned against the
extremely serious threat posed abroad and at home by radical Islam,
including support for extremism."
"No organization has worked harder to promote genuine dialog among
people of different faiths than the American Jewish Committee." Jacobs
stated. "No organization has more vigorously worked for civil rights or
with more devotion for the cause of tolerance."
"That is why it is a matter of national significance," Jacobs said,
"that the national leadership of the AJC has condemned the Islamic Society
of Boston's lawsuit. It is a lawsuit brought against citizens who in our
view raised important, legitimate, and well-substantiated concerns about
the past and present leaders of the ISB, and about the evidence that
certain of those individuals have been supportive of extremism."
Jacobs said, "The ISB, funded with millions of dollars from Saudi
Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East, appears to seek to frighten
journalists and citizens alike with this lawsuit, using its immense
financial power to chill the most fundamental exercise of freedom of
speech."
"While apparently seeking to bully critics on one hand," Jacobs said,
"the ISB invokes the platitudes of 'dialog' and 'reconciliation' on the
other. While professing to be interested in transparency, on one hand, it
retaliates against journalists who write critical articles about it, on the
other."
"The AJC is no stranger to important battles of principle, even ones
that may be unpopular in certain quarters," said Jacobs. "That is why the
David Project is especially pleased to have its support in defending itself
against the Islamic Society lawsuit, and the dangers that such a lawsuit
presents."
Pertinent Links:
1) Boston: Islamic group sues scholar for libeling Muslims
2) David Project Welcomes American Jewish Committee Criticism of Islamic Society of Boston's Lawsuit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
