Al-Timimi update from the Washington Post, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
Islamic spiritual leader Ali Al-Timimi's pen is mightier than his sword, prosecutors contend. It's not so much his actions but his words that make him so dangerous, they say.Less than a week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Timimi told a group of Northern Virginia Muslims that it should train for violent jihad abroad and wage war on the United States, prosecutors say. In 2003, he celebrated the crash of the space shuttle Columbia in a message that prosecutors say reflected his view that the United States itself should be destroyed.
The government says the statements of Timimi -- who goes on trial today in U.S. District Court in Alexandria -- constitute nothing short of treason. But some Muslims, who are rallying to Timimi's side through a Web site and other expressions of support, see a respected religious leader being prosecuted for his words.
"He is not accused of anything except talking. It's all about him saying something," said Shaker Elsayed, a member of the executive committee of Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church. "If this isn't a First Amendment issue, I don't know what is."
If that's the case, then advocacy of treason and the destruction of the United States should go on unimpeded -- as long as the one speaking does not act? Preposterous. The First Amendment, as has often been noted, was never meant to be a suicide pact.
Morning all!
Today’s Extras:
The Leftist Academia’s propaganda machine. It's the perfect Anti-Science: Mention only the facts that back you up, ignore contradictory data, vilify anyone that questions you, stamp out calls for reform, repeat the lies again and again, and eventually you will win.
Jihad Jane:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17595
Veiled threat:
http://techcentralstation.com/040105A.html
Border control: Minute-Men off to a decent start:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050404/D89890F00.html
After dougie hooper's (cair) curtailment of NRs book sales, he's probably getting dizzy trying to figure out the spin about hate speech here.....but as we all know....that's quite different! Muzzie talk is free speech, kafir talk is hate-filled, racist, islamophobic, etc, etc.
GK
"He is not accused of anything except talking. It's all about him saying something," said Shaker Elsayed, a member of the executive committee of Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church. "If this isn't a First Amendment issue, I don't know what is."
Believe it or not,Shaker Elsayed; there is more than one amendment to the Constitution-- Treason --article III -- section III
The behavior of Muslim spokesmen, Muslim organizations, Muslim men-on-the-street, continues to belie the notion of Muslims as "loyal Americans." How is it possible both to have sole loyalty to Islam and the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers, and to be a declared adherent of a belief-system that divides the universe along the fault lines (and guess whose fault it all is, for obstinately refusing to submit to Islam?) of Believer and Infidel. That distinction can be found everywhere in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and anyone who claims or pretends to believe otherwise is at best a fool, at worst a sinister agent spreading deliberate misinformation.
How can simultaneously swear allegiance to support the Constitution, and with it the Bill of Rights, which flatly contradicts the spirit and the letter, in every relevant respect, of the shari'a? It is squaring the circle. It can't be done.
Now comes Al-Timimi and his loyal followers who no doubt will show up in court (as so many did for that Saudi a few weeks ago), intending not merely to show support but trying to intimidate, a consistent tactic of Muslims here, there, and everywhere.
They have no understanding of, and no genuine interest in, the complexities of the Free Speech clause. All they know, or think they know, is that with that clause, they can say, or write, anything they feel like.
That is not what the Free Speech clause stands for. See Holmes, see Brandeis, see Learned Hand, see Mr. Justice Jackson.
It would, of course, help clarify things a bit if Congress would, for god's sake, at long last pass a resolution about the Jihad -- declaring the United States at war not with a country, but with the "ideology of Jihad." No, it is not satisfactory; it does not name "Islam." But it stops just short -- and does the same work, and will have to do. Then let Muslims everywhere deny the centrality of the Jihad, or attempt to define it out of existence (as some already are).
It is, of course, too late for casuistry and taqiyya. At this point, it really doesn't matter what even the Bright Young Muslim Things, or the not-so-bright and not-so-young "reformers" portentously claiming that "the Battle of the Mosque is Joined" (no sense of humor or display of self-understanding here). What has been learned about Islam will not be unlearned, no matter how softly-softly some proceed from here on out. The example of Turkey shows: Islam keeps coming back, unlocking the door of the cage in which it had been largely confined by Ataturk, and will keep re-appearing.
That being the case, constant vigilance is necessary. A good place to begin is to make the al-Timimis of this world understand that the First Amendment is not what they apparently think it is -- and to "revisit" as law professors annoyingly like to say, the so-called Brandenburg test.
And the Brandenburg test should be modified, because the harm involved in the kind of speech in this and similar cases, involves a murderous hatred of Americans (and other Infidels), that cannot be judged by the "likelihood of imminent violence" but rather, by the slow and steady working upon Muslim minds that may result here in someone going off to kill Americans in Afghanistan, or there in Iraq, or over here someone taking a gun and firing it in at a school van, or at a ticket counter. In other words, there is no sure way to link the particular website, or imam's sermon, or satellite channel broadcast, to a particular act of murder or mass-murder -- but that there is a connnection, no one can doubt.
In the Dennis case, Judge Learned Hand used a calculation of the size of the potential harm multiplied by the likelihood of the harm. But in the case of Muslim terrorism, the harm involved is not theoretical (as it was in the case of anarchists and Communists who had, in the 20th century, been the chief targets of limits on speech) -- 9/11 is one proof, and there are a hundred others here and abroad (Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Djerba, Jerusalem). The size of the harm -which now includes the use of any and all weapons of mass destruction, is so gigantic, and so clear, that the "likelihood" side of the equation need not, it should be argued, any longer be limited to the threat of "imminent violence" that forms the basis of the Brandenburg test.
And there are other benefits as well. Law publishers, and law professors making money from their textbooks, mindful of the grumbling of law students at the necessity of shelling out $60 for the new edition of a book that really does not require a new edition, always hope that some new and important doctrine will be articulated, for that would truly justify the inclusion of a new case or two (and, bien sur, Questions for Study and Discussion), and those law students would have less grounds for complaint at the West Publishing -- Foundation Press (with the same owner) "new edition" shenanigans.
So let's get on with this case. And make sure that such statements by al-Timimi can be properly punished and similar statements limited as well. Mr. Justice Jackson's "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" is now repeated on every occasion, and some may be embarrassed to keep repeating it.
Well, don't be.
I guess the same argument could be used in the case of someone who threatens the life of the President. I don't think it would carry much weight though, rightfully so. Freedom of speech should not cover threats, especially incitement.
Famously, the First Amendment doesn't provide the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre where there is no fire so Shaker Elsayed's claim to protection for Ali Al-Timimi's incitements to violence thereunder is beyond pathetic.
So if i say "This is a stickup" I have committed no crime?
Timme to turn Hollywood loose on Islam with sitcoms that do to Islam what they have done for Christianity and Judaism.
I was hoping by the title they were going to finally out the Quran as hate speech in a court of law.
Freedom of speech was to protect the public from any harm by the Government for critizing
their actions,the breaking away from England
included removing the chance of a British citizen
becoming a King while in the USA and attempting to claim American for the Church of England and force religion on people.
The declaration of independence took 11 years
to be ratified by the 13 colonies that also demanded a separation of Chruch and State,it didn't say that religious morals and values couldn't be a guiding factor under the democracy
system of rule.
Muslims have been lied to by their Imam's,calling for the death of a certain group
of people or the destruction of the USA is not a protected right in the Constitution.
After a few Muslim leaders start going to jail for their hate speeches the rest of them will actually read the Laws for treason,if not they'll be educated at the end of the barrel on a shotgun .
Ali al-Timimi's story is proof positive that LISTENING TO ANYTHING A MUSLISM SAYS IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH!!!!
And, of course, the moral of this article is..... NEVER LISTEN TO ANYTHING A MUSLIM SAYS!!!!
If you don't agree with me, remember this man's colleagues claim the man's prosecution is "all about him saying something." If Muslims can't say things that don't require retalliatory lawsuits then it is quite clear NOBODY needs to be listening to them or what they are saying!
Muslims should go around with warning labels that prevent the rest of us from bodily harm (or worse) resulting from their existence.
There goes Gary the fanatic again.
It's not the left doesn't deserve criticism, and bear watching (at least the Islamophilic left), but he has on his usual blinders. A firebrand against treason from the left, but all apologia and distraction when it comes to treason from the right. Same mentality as the Muslims,just from the polar opposite, but alas the end results work out to be similar.
I just don't see much difference in mindset between Gary and the Islamists. Poor myopic
Gary, there is always hope he will grow up and leave behind his infantilism
Back on topic.
This right of free speech, didn't protect our home grown Nazi's during WWII.
I think we need an anti fascist movement, addressing fascism in whatever form it rears its head, be it under the crescent, cross, star of david or secular.
BTW Gary I read your linked articles. They are actually good articles. Unfortunately you blame everything on the "left", but you see I've spent a couple of years on another forum, that is dominated by posters that are "right" (they share the same right wing family conservative values as you) except that like Jihad Jane, they are Christians, anti Zionists and pro Muslim and no they are not NAZI's either.
As an example Alex Jones (whose website is endorsed by Jihad Jane (a Methodist) is not by any stretch a "leftist", in fact he is about right wing conservative as they come..very, very Christian, "family values" and anti feminist and homophobic. LOL.
The world is not simple as the simple minded make it out to be.
However the commonality between Muslims and non Muslim conservatives is striking and indicative, because Muslims are conservative as well.
Family values, patriarchial (anti feminists, anti abortion, anti gay).
The social policy espoused by the Catholic Church and the Pope, Orthodox Jews and Calvinists is indistinquishable from that of the Muslims.
You talk about being anti science, LOL nothing ore anti science than true Christians, to wit: the teaching of Biblical Creationism in Kansas, and it's spread throughout the south and midwest.
'but all apologia and distraction when it comes to treason from the right'~ giaour
Quote me. show me the apologia and distraction. Especially show me treason from the 'Right' that doesn't come from crackpot websites and disgruntled losers. I have not apologized or distracted from anything the 'Right' may be doing wrong. I merely don't say much about it at all. I do from time to time give links to articles critical of Bush and Co- not that you seem to notice. Mr. Spencer covers it well enough on his own, don't you think?
Using 9/11 to tear down the US (thanks to the NEA):
http://frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp
Oh! My apologies on one thing, however: it was kj who I am quoting above. It just fit the leftist Academia's modus operandi so well! (one only needs read on Horowitz' site for abundant, daily proof of that assertion). Just wanted to clear that up, I don't know if definitions like that can be copywrit.
"He is not accused of anything except talking. It's all about him saying something,"
... could almost be about Jordan Eason.
Jihad in Thailand Gaining Momentum
Aren't those who criticize, mock, doubt and work against Islam in written word and speech just "all about ...saying something..."?
I hope this quote of Mr. S. Elsayed now puts an end to the Muslims' use of the scare-tactic word 'Islamophobia'. After all, every skeptic about the Koran is "not accused of anything except talking".
A new era is born! Islam is reformed!
No more Sharia punishments for opposing Mohammad's words.
Since he was just talking, too.
It is absolutely absurd to say this man's speech is protected. His Council Apologizes..."He did nt DO anything, he just used words"...
I give you...The United States Criminal Code:
18 U.S.C. § 2385
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both...
OR
18 U.S.C. § 2384
The federal government has the power to outlaw and punish conspiracies the purpose of which is to overthrow the government itself by force and violence.
Seditious conspiracy is a punishable offense under a federal statute. It is an offense if two or more persons in any state or territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof. This offense is distinct from the statutory offenses relating to advocating the overthrow of government.
The kind of "war" punishable under the statute does not require the presence of a foreign power or actual war in the sense of a forcible conquest of territory and supplanting of the government. The interests to be protected by enforcing statute include government's interest in safeguarding public security.
The seditious conspiracy statute requires no furthering at all of the goal of sedition for liability to attach because the crime is the agreement to promote the ends the law forbids.
"The federal government has the power to outlaw and punish conspiracies the purpose of which is to overthrow the government itself by force and violence." --posted above.
The statute needs to be rewritten.
Legislative drafters may wish to revise the language to cover the Jihad, which in this country does not intend to "overthrow the government...by force and violence" but to intimidate and harass in order to limit anti-Jihad measures, and to conduct Da'wa, targetting first the most vulnerable populations (as prisoners), including the psychically and economically marginal.
1) "The federal government has to thw poer to outlaw and punish those spreading an ideology the purpose of which is to supplant the Constitution with another system of law, or to work against the individual liberties, including freedom of individual conscience, guaranteed by that Constitution." -- something like that, that would make clear that apostasy from Islam, as from other, less geopolitical relgions, must be protected.
2) instead of punishing "conspiracies...to overthrow the government itself by force and violence" reword that part to make it include "the attempt to undermine very nature of the American polity that is guaranteed by the Constitution, so that poliy will eventually be transformed.."
Well, it needs work.
But you get the idea.
Legislative drafters, where are you? Your time has come. Pitch in.
Primer on Treason
Yeah, right, thats just what we need. More power and self-protection for our CORRUPTED and incompetent federal government.
The constitution was rendered virtually null and void years ago by those sworn to uphold and defend it. The laws of the constitution only apply if it suits their purpose or if they can decieve the people to accept their Orwellian "interpretation".
Maybe if there were'nt so many agencies and bureaucracies, and the federal government was not a mass employment program(one of it's many aces in the hole to ensure continued growth and protection), there might be a reduction in incompetence, real subversion, and an increase in actual accountability. Oh, perish the thought. How subversive of me.