November 21, 2006 Posts
01:43 CAIR-FL: Democrats Should Seize Opportunity 03:45 The Worst AG in History? 11:53 Hizbollah Assassinates Another Lebanese Leader? 14:59 Imams Removed From Twin Cities Flight 16:50 They Got It Right!!! 22:23 Bush: "I'd Understand If Israel Attacked Iran"
CAIR-FL: Democrats Should Seize Opportunity
In this official statement, CAIR has announced its 2007 legislative wish list:
Democrats should seize this opportunity and show leadership by fixing our country's situation here and abroad by (among other things):This isn't the first time that CAIR has worked against the Patriot Act. I first learned of their disapproval of it here:
1. Bringing our troops back home;
2. Becoming an even-handed broker in the Middle East conflict;
3. Reviewing the parts of the Patriot Act that are damaging to our liberty and way of life;
4. Reviewing policies and holding hearings on policies that unfairly target the Muslim community, such as NSA wiretapping, and denial of visas to Muslim leaders who advocate peace and justice, such as Yusuf Islam (known as Cat Stevens).
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), and other Congressional Democrats were joined yesterday by national leaders of the Muslim American community in a roundtable discussion on issues of mutual concern to Democrats and Muslim Americans. The discussion centered on working together to defend civil rights and to restore civil liberties.Think of how foolish it sounds when Speaker-in-waiting Pelosi says that "Religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal." Considering that 19 Islamic radicals had hijacked planes and flown them into the World Trade Center towers and into the Pentagon, I'd be upset with the government if it didn't pay extra attention to Muslims.
"This discussion is only the first in an ongoing dialogue between Congressional Democrats and Muslim Americans," Pelosi said. "We share a fundamental principle, the belief that diversity is the backbone of our communities. Generations of Muslims have made positive contributions in every aspect of American life. We must now work even more closely to navigate through the challenges we face as a nation."
"Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct," Pelosi continued. "Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal."
"When the Patriot Act was enacted, it was intended to be accompanied by strong Congressional oversight to prevent abuses of our civil liberties. That oversight has not occurred, particularly with the mass detention campaign ordered by Attorney General Ashcroft, which to date has led to more than 5,000 foreign nationals being detained since September 11th. Moreover, individuals' assets have been frozen on the basis of secret evidence that they have no opportunity to confront or rebut, and such processes are a fundamental denial of due process. We must correct the Patriot Act to prevent abuses of our civil liberties."
That being said, it bothers me that CAIR only talks in theoretical terms about civil rights violations but can't produce proof of any civil rights violations. Many were the times when Democrats and CAIR talked about civil rights concerns. When they were asked to present proof that civil rights violations had occured, however, they couldn't offer proof that any violations had been committed.
Another bothersome aspect to this statement is how Ms. Pelosi agreed with CAIR that a "mass detention campaign ordered by Attorney General Ashcroft, which to date has led to more than 5,000 foreign nationals being detained since September 11th." There were 5,000+ people that were interviewed by various law enforcement and intelligence agencies but it's insulting to hear CAIR/Ms. Pelosi suggest that 5,000 foreign nationals were detained. Had that happened, you can bet that the ACLU and other civil rights attorneys would've filed a record amount of lawsuits.
When Ms. Pelosi's states that "We must correct the Patriot Act to prevent abuses of our civil liberties", the implication is that somebody's civil liberties were abused, something that I won't believe without solid proof. It isn't a stretch to think that CAIR would allege this type of activity if you look at their history.
All you need to know about CAIR's meeting with Pelosi's entourage is found here:
Working with Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act , and make immigration safe and accessible.I'll give CAIR this much: They're persistent in their desire to see the Patriot Act gutted. Fortunately for national security-minded people, there isn't any chance that type of legislation would get out of the Senate, much less past President Bush's veto pen.
Posted Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:43 AM
No comments.
The Worst AG in History?
A case certainly could be made for Janet Reno in that respect based on her utterly partisan behavior during Clinton's second term alone. That said, this article provides additional proof of her ineptitude.
Former Attorney General Janet Reno and seven other former Justice Department officials filed court papers Monday arguing that the Bush administration is setting a dangerous precedent by trying a suspected terrorist outside the court system. It was the first time that Reno, attorney general in the Clinton administration, has spoken out against the administration's policies on terrorism detainees, underscoring how contentious the court fight over the nation's new military commissions law has become. Former attorneys general rarely file court papers challenging administration policy.Reno is betting that the liberals on the Supreme Court will side with her on this, if it makes it that far but that's far from a sure thing considering their opinion in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, which struck down the military tribunals only on the grounds that the Executive Branch couldn't unilaterally establish military tribunals. Another important facet to this ruling is that they said that enemy combatants didn't have to be tried but that there was judicial oversight in the sense that the Judicial branch could rule whether someone was properly termed an enemy combatant.
Suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is the only detainee being held in the United States. The former prosecutors challenged the Justice Department's right to bring al-Marri before a military commission. A citizen of Qatar, he was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He had faced criminal charges until authorities designated him an enemy combatant and ordered him held at a naval base in South Carolina.
The Justice Department said in court papers last week that a new anti-terrorism law strips detainees such as al-Marri of the right to challenge their imprisonment in court.
Reno's lawsuit argues in favor of trying enemy combatants in a regular court subject to the rules of evidence. That's scary considering how the evidence is collected. If Reno's lawsuit prevails, it could give terrorists access to classified information, including sources and methods used in collecting the information. Only an airhead like Reno wouldn't see the danger in that.
One of the last pieces of legislation passed before the election was the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which codifies into law military commissions. Enemy combatants' due process rights are protected through a limited appeals process and via judicial oversight on the Commission's activities.
According to Wikipedia:
The bill passed the Senate, 65-34, on September 28, 2006. The bill passed in the House, 250-170-12, on September 29, 2006. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on October 17, 2006.The legislation wouldn't have won such bipartisan support if it didn't address key due process rights.
I'm betting that the Justice Department's case against Mr. al-Marri is airtight and that part of their proof is classified, which is why they're planning on trying al-Marri at a military commission instead of in open court.
What this means is that Ms. Reno's lawsuit speaks more to her perspective on 'fighting' the GWOT with her hands tied behind her back than it speaks to the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act. It speaks to the ineffectiveness of the Reno Justice Department and to her personal incompetence. Her ineptitude speaks for itself.
Posted Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:46 AM
No comments.
Hizbollah Assassinates Another Lebanese Leader?
It's too early to know for certain but I'd say it's a definite possibility after reading this article.
Prominent anti-Syrian Christian politician Pierre Gemayel was assassinated in a suburb of Beirut on Tuesday, his Phalange Party radio station and Lebanon's official news agency reported. The slaying will certainly heighten political tensions in Lebanon, where the leading Muslim Shiite party Hizbollah has threatened to topple the government if it does not get a bigger say in Cabinet decision-making.Captain Ed is wondering if this assassination will have the same effect as Rafiq Harriri's assasination. It's still too early to know but I agree with Captain Ed that this has the same potential of blowing up in Hizbollah's face.
It'll be interesting to see what actions the Bush administration take after this assassination. The first step should be to ignore the Baker Commission if they suggest that we should include Syria and Iran in a Middle Eastern forum on 'solving' the Iraq war problem. This assassination attempt should eliminate any doubts on whether they'd rather have peace or turmoil in their neighborhood. This is proof positive that they prefer turmoil in the region.
Saad Hariri, leader of the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority, broke off a televised news conference after hearing Gemayel had been shot. In an interview with CNN, Hariri praised him as "a friend, a brother to all of us" and appeared to break down after saying: "We will bring justice to all those who killed him." Gemayel, the minister of industry and son of former President Amin Gemayel, was a supporter of the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority, which is locked in a power struggle with pro-Syrian factions led by Hezbollah.I hope that they've increased the security around Hariri. Let's also hope that this sparks the proud Lebanese people to restart the Cedar Revolution, which happened in the wake of Rafiq Hariri's assassination.
As I recall at the time, the French took it very personally when Syria/Hizbollah assassinated the elder Hariri. I'd suggest that this represents another opportunity for President Bush to work with the French at the Security Council. Let's hope that they'd impose sanctions on Syria as a result of this.
Gemayel is the third prominent figure in Lebanon to be assassinated in the past two years. Former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, Saad Hariri's father, was killed in a car bombing in February 2005, and lawmaker and newspaper manager Gibran Tueni was killed in a car bombing in December 2005.It's time that the U.S. tightened up their policies on Syria and Iran. This event should provide ample justification for that tightening.
Welcome Gateway Pundit readers. I encourage you to check back from time to time as I'll be posting updates to this story as new information becomes available.
Originally posted Tuesday, November 21, 2006, revised 22-Nov 3:58 AM
No comments.
Imams Removed From Twin Cities Flight
Of course, CAIR is outraged. Of course, the headline is intended to play on peoples' sensibilities but it doesn't tell the whole story. The article tells more of what actually happened:
Three of them stood and said their normal evening prayers together on the plane, as 1.7 billion Muslims around the world do every day, Shahin said. He attributed any concerns by passengers or crew to ignorance about Islam. "I never felt bad in my life like that," he said. "I never. Six imams. Six leaders in this country. Six scholars in handcuffs. It's terrible."First of all, there aren't 1.7 billion Muslims in the world so Shahin starts with a lie. Furthermore, every picture I've ever seen of Muslims praying has shown them kneeling so this isn't what "Muslims around the world do every day." After starting with a lie, he then impugns the other passengers, saying that they're ignorant about Islam. He concludes by saying that six imams are leaders. While it's true that they are leaders, the unasked and unanswered question is "leaders of what"?
"CAIR will be filing a complaint with relevant authorities in the morning over the treatment of the imams to determine whether the incident was caused by anti-Muslim hysteria by the passengers and/or the airline crew," Hooper said. "Because, unfortunately, this is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time."Forgive me if I don't buy into Mr. Hooper's statement. What Mr. Hooper wants us to forget is that three imams had never stood up on an airplane to say their prayers. The First Amendment guarantees their right to practice their religion. That said, passengers on this plane were rightly worried because this was an unusual act. After all, whenever we see pictures of Muslims praying, they're kneeling down.
Furthermore, the 'paranoia' that Mr. Hooper talks about is actually people acting rationally. After 19 Arabic jihadists hijack airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we'd better be paying attention to Muslims doing unusual things on airplanes. It's best that we not pay attention to Mr. Hooper, whether he stands on his head or holds his breath until he's blue in the face because his argument isn't a serious argument.
Shahin expressed frustration that, despite extensive efforts by him and other Muslim leaders since even before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, so many Americans know so little about Islam. "If up to now they don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," he said.I'm always suspicious whenever I read about CAIR's outrage. That's certainly the case here. That's why I googled Shahin's name. Here's something that my search turned up:
Other KindHearts officials with radical Islamist ties are:Obviously, the passengers on the airline weren't likely to know Shahin's history. That isn't the point. The point is that it's equally obvious that CAIR knew Shahin's history and chose to defend Shahin anyway. Doesn't that raise some questions about CAIR's motives with you?
KindHearts' Representative, Omar Shahin. Shahin was an Imam for the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT), the former home of numerous terror operatives, including Wael Jelaidan, who later helped found Al-Qaeda.
Here's the first question I'd ask:
Why does CAIR defend someone with such a history? If I knew of a Christian pastor who was associated with terrorists, I certainly wouldn't defend that pastor. I wouldn't feel compelled to defend that pastor just because we're both Christians. I'd further suspect that mainstream Jews wouldn't defend a rabbi who supported a radical ideology.
Here's another question I'd have:
What would have to happen before CAIR wouldn't defend a Muslim? In fact, is there anything that a Muslim could do that would cause CAIR to not defend a Muslim? I haven't seen proof that there's anything that a Muslim has done that would cause CAIR to not defend them. Perhaps proof exists but I haven't seen it and I've done a pretty fair amount of digging into CAIR.
UPDATE: The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a new article posted with this additional information:
Pat Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, said that witnesses to Monday's events told police that before the flight that besides praying, the imams were spouting anti-American rhetoric, talking about the war in Iraq and Saddam Hussein. One of the imams was heard saying that he would do whatever is necessary to fulfill his commitment to the Qur'an, witnesses told police, Hogan said. Other witnesses said some of the imams were repeating "Allah, Allah," he said. And a couple of the imams asked for seat-belt extensions, even though it did not appear they needed them, Hogan said. All of this made passengers, the attendants and the pilot uncomfortable, Hogan said. As a result, the pilot called police to have the imams escorted from plane.I'd hardly call this a case of the passengers acting irrationally. To the contrary, I might have reacted the same way. If I'd heard some Muslim men spewing anti-American rhetoric, I'm fairly certain that I would've reacted with alarm because that's the type of thing I'd be paying attention to in post-9/11 America.
If the anti-American speech didn't get my undivided attention, then I'm positive that hearing an imam say that he'd "do whatever is necessary to fulfill his commitment to the Qur'an" would get my undivided attention in a heartbeat. Here's the ultimate ironic quote from the article:
"I want to go home. I don't want phone numbers," Shahin said. "I want to buy six tickets. They have no reason to refuse service to us just because of the way we look," he said "It's terrible. We want America to stay the way it is because we love this country."If I had the opportunity, I'd tell Mr. Shahin that I'd prefer living in a terrorist-free world so we didn't have to be suspicious. I don't have that option anymore because the Middle East was a breeding ground for this hateful ideology, partly because we didn't take the terrorist movement seriously. I'd further say that if Mr. Shahin "loves this country", then he'd understand that we must be vigilant in watching for Muslims spewing "anti-American rhetoric" in airports.
I'd further suggest that if Mr. Shahin wanted to be a good citizen, then he'd do everything possible to act in such a way that wouldn't draw attention to himself. For example, if Americans had committed a terrorist act in an Arab country, I'd make extra certain not to do anything to draw attention to myself by spewing anti-Arabic rhetoric.
It seems to me that Americans have a right to expect that behavior from Mr. Shahin.
Posted Tuesday, November 21, 2006 8:36 PM
No comments.
They Got It Right!!!
The they I'm refering to are the members of the BBWAA & the thing they got right was in naming the Twins' Justin Morneau as the AL MVP. Here's a portion of the Strib's article:
Justin Morneau was named the American League's Most Valuable Player today, edging New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter in a surprise vote by the Baseball Writers Association of America.The first thing that must be said is "Congratulations, Justin, for your many outstanding achievements this season!!! You represented Minnesotans with a high intensity level, a commitment to winning and by improving every facet of your game."
Morneau became the fourth Twin to win the league's MVP award, joining Rod Carew (1977), Harmon Killebrew (1969) and Zoilo Versalles (1965).
Morneau received 15 of 28 first-place votes and finished with 320 points. Jeter had 306 points and received 12 first-place votes.
Twins catcher Joe Mauer finished sixth with 116 points, and Johan Santana, who won his second AL Cy Young Award last week, finished seventh in the MVP voting with 114 points.
In short, Justin carried the Twins for the better part of their comeback. Time & again, he got the key hits that fueled late inning rallies. Time & again, he proved he wasn't just a power hitter by getting late inning doubles down the left field line. Time & again, Justin worked counts into his advantage before getting game-winning hits.
Justin was the MVP by any yardstick you chose to use. He was the best clutch hitter in the AL from June 8th onward. PERIOD. He carried the Twins on a magical comeback that Twins fans didn't think possible when it started back in mid-June. Few would've bet on a team that trailed the division-leading Detroit team by 12 1/2 games after the All Star break. Fewer still would've bet on the Twins knowing that they trailed the then-defending World Championship Mighty Whities by 10 games, too.
The truth is that Justin became the type of player that he was projected to be, with great credit going to Twins hitting coach Joe Vavra for Justin's turnaround.
The improvement wasn't just offensively, either. While he'll never be mistaken for Doug Mientkiewicz or Kent Hrbek, Morneau improved defensively this year, too.
In short, he had an MVP year because he contributed in the clutch; he contributed defensively; he contributed with his late inning confidence.
That's why Justin's the only justifiable choice for MVP.
Posted Tuesday, November 21, 2006 4:50 PM
No comments.
Bush: "I'd Understand If Israel Attacked Iran"
That's the headline from this Haaretz article. Frankly, I agree with President Bush. Last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated the obvious in saying that Israel has a right to exist, regardless of what Ahmadinejad said. the reason Prime Minister Netanyahu said that was because he knows that someone will have to take out Iran's nuclear capability. Here's why:
In recent talks with their Israeli counterparts, French government officials estimated that Iran would reach the "point of no return" in its nuclear program by spring 2007, in approximately five months. At that point, according to Israeli sources, Iran will be in a position to simultaneously operate approximately 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium. Various estimates by international experts hold that Monday Iran is operating 340-600 such centrifuges.I wouldn't bet on Israel taking the military option off the table because they'd be Ahmadinejad's first target. We'd best not think that Israel would be their last target, though. Ahmadinejad's apocolyptic worldview includes a worldwide caliphate that doesn't stop with wiping Israel off the map. Ahmadinejad wouldn't stop until he ruled the world.
U.S. President George W. Bush and President Jacques Chirac of France met several weeks ago. Bush told his French counterpart that the possibility that Israel would carry out a strike against Iran's nuclear installations should not be ruled out. Bush also said that if such an attack were to take place, he would understand it.You can't blame a country for protecting its sovereignty, which is what an Israeli strike would ensure.
Posted Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:24 PM
No comments.
