At cross-purposes, don't ya think?
Friday August 31, 2007
Categories: Islam
In Dallas, the Department of Justice is presenting evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial tying the Islamic Society of North America closely to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, which, according to a MB planning document introduced into evidence, has a...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
I dearly wish events would make Derb's recent article seem more foolish.
The prosecutors' frustration is understandable, but what the heck is an unindicted co-conspirator anyway?
Really, if the government has evidence that they are conspiring to finance terrorism, their assets should be seized and their leaders arrested. U.S. attorneys certainly have the tools to do that.
Declaring someone an unindicted co-conspirator, on the other hand, is a cheap form of libel by prosecutors, who neither have to prove the charge nor face the rebuttal of any kind of genuine legal defense.
That said, I'm unfamiliar with the facts of the trial. What is ISNA alleged to have done?
Rod, is the ISNA membership a monolithic bloc of Islamic extremists who share the goal of forcing Islamic law on the US?
If so, then no, it does not make sense for the DOJ to have a presence there.
On the other hand, if the ISNA membership is not a monolithic bloc and if some of those members accept living, or perhaps even prefer living, in a secular, pluralistic society, then perhaps it does make sense for the DOJ to have a presence there.
John,
I think Rod's point was that the Department of Justice is not being consistent, that the right hand does not appear to know what the left hand is doing, and that is bad no matter how you look at it.
When the Department of Justice Counterterrorism section puts anyone on the un-indicted co-conspirators list alongside the Holy Land Foundation defendants, then no one in the government ought to be making appearances with them--including other sections in the Department of Justice.
This problem of inconsistency is used against us to legitimize the conspirators. If the experts in the COUNTERTERRORISM section of the Department of Justice see fit to include ISNA, CAIR and the others it has strong indications of holding terrorist ties, then those whose expertise is NOT counter-terrorism ought to give their own experts preference over the suspect organizations.
If anyone wants, but does not have, a good handle on terrorist activities in the United States (like the 92 cases that have been tried here in the past 10 years or so without much more than localized media coverage they should see the free, exhaustive documentation on www.investigativeproject.com including trial coverages, evidence, video and audio clips.
When I get fed up with incongruous absurdities like this, I like to watch Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood under the guise of doing it for the kids. C'mon kids, let's watch Mr. Rogers! Feed the fish, where's Trolley, how do they make crayons? I didn't realize Mr. Rogers would become a valued and trusted voice of peace and simplicity when I was making fun of him during my adolescence.
It seems clear that the reason so many of the biggest US Muslim organizations are on the "unindicted co-conspirators" list is that they, like the Holy Land Foundation, all have their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. The government is saying, "Look, we choose not to bring charges against these groups, but they are significantly, if not criminally, connected to the alleged plotters on trial." ISNA, CAIR and other leading Muslim organizations all grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, which, according to seized documents entered into evidence at the trial, is trying to set up organizations here to root itself in civil society, for the sake of waging jihad to overthrow the US system and set up sharia.
I have no evidence that ISNA has engaged in anything criminal, and if the government does have such evidence, it's not produced it. But there has been ample evidence introduced at trial showing the common roots of all these groups in the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Dept cannot plausibly claim in Dallas that ISNA is part of the problem, but also try to engage them simultaneously in Chicago.
"It seems clear that the reason so many of the biggest US Muslim organizations are on the "unindicted co-conspirators" list is that they, like the Holy Land Foundation, all have their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood."
It's equally clear to me that the UCC list is a favor to the state of Israel. Please, ask Mark Briskman if he doesn't agree.
If they're guilty, indict them, by all means. If not, put up or shut up. But then, that would not fit into the smear campaign.
>>>It seems clear that the reason so many of the biggest US Muslim organizations are on the "unindicted co-conspirators" list is that they, like the Holy Land Foundation, all have their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood.
Has nothing to do with their roots, this is about entering hearsay evidence into a trial:
>>Technically, the prosecution can introduce statements made by any individual or organization named as an unindicted co-conspirator without such statements being dismissed as hearsay.
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/cair-contests-its-position-as-unindicted-co-conspirator/
>>>I have no evidence that ISNA has engaged in anything criminal, and if the government does have such evidence, it's not produced it.
and why would the government not produce any such evidence?
>>>But there has been ample evidence introduced at trial showing the common roots of all these groups in the extremist Muslim Brotherhood.
Surely you aren't promoting the idea of guilt by association?
"Surely you aren't promoting the idea of guilt by association?"
That's exactly what he's doing. Unfortunately, it will (probably)take him another four years to figure out how wrong he is about HLF, just like it took him four years to figure out how wrong he was about Bush and the GWOT.
Rod apparantly thinks it's better to isolate all Muslims--or deport them--instead of doing government or diplomatic outreach. This is what happens when you are so immersed in an elaborate conspiracy theory and are unwillling to consider you don't have all the information. Rod's made up his mind and isn't willing to consider he doesn't have the whole picture, despite a track record on these issues--can anyone say support for the invasion of Iraq and cheerleading for the White House--that is a little suspect.
Given everything we know about the war on Iraq and DOJ, why do you trust the prosecution and evidence being admitted in a show-trial in the most anti-Mulsim friendly jurisdiction in the U.S. There's a reason that they are having this trial in Dallas, and it's not because of the shopping.
What asinine comments, especially yours, Daniel. The reason they're having this trial in Dallas is because that's where the Holy Land Foundation was based.
I don't claim these groups are guilty of anything other than having their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, which promotes extreme Islam, and according to a document introduced into the trial, intends to establish its brand of Islam in US civil society, and control Muslim organizations -- with the ultimate goal being Islamist revolution and a sharia state. If you want to believe in your cloud-cuckoo land theories, be my guest. But the evidence is there in the trial. And I contacted Prof. Husain Haqqani, head of the Intl Relations Dept at Boston U., to ask him if that "strategy document" from the MB was an accurate description of how the MB operates in this country (establish and/or take over Muslim organizations for the sake of making its highly politicized version of Islam normative in America). He told me it was. I only mention him because he is a Muslim himself, and is really concerned about the MB's role in US Muslim life.
"I don't claim these groups are guilty of anything other than having their roots in the Muslim Brotherhood..."
And the KKK has roots in Christianity. Get out the broad brushes, boys, we have some white washin' to do.
Of course, Haqqani is the go to Muslim for the conservative elite, which is why he is a Hudson Institute Fellow and writes Op-eds for the Wall Street Journal, as well as speaks at neoconservative-funded conferences like the one you went to in Turkey. Of course he believes you, because he holds the same opinions your hold. There's a reason he's the favorite Muslim academic in your circles. He's hardly neutral, as surely you realize.
His is just one opinion. Sadly, it is the opinion that parrots those in your conservative elite circles so of course you believe it.
ISNA STATEMENT OF POSITION
http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=898
Rod, why do you continue to conflate the Muslim Brotherhood with ISNA?
ISNA Denounces Terrorism in the Name of Islam
http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=4
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.