"'The government will have an opportunity to respond to these allegations in court,' said FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller. 'However, the accusations appear to be an attempt to discredit law enforcement for personal gain, at the expense of the Muslim-American community.'"
It is much more likely, given the stifling politically correct environment within the FBI, that they hung Craig Monteilh out to dry for fear of offending the "Muslim-American community," and now he is calling them on it.
"Man who says he spied on mosques for FBI files lawsuit," by James Wagner for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, January 31 (thanks to Twostellas):
Craig Monteilh says he lives in danger.He's been targeted for death by Islamic extremist groups, the Romanian and Mexican mafias and white supremacist groups. One fugitive now wants his head, he claims.
Today Monteilh, a 47-year-old fitness consultant, plans to serve papers on the people he says put him in this bind - his former employer, the FBI, and the Irvine Police Department.
Monteilh, who says he spied on mosques for the FBI as an undercover informant, filed a lawsuit last week claiming his agency handlers violated his civil rights and put his life in danger.
"They put me in prison with no protection," he said. "There were hits on my life. I had to do what was necessary to survive in there in defense of my own life."
He said his FBI supervisors reneged on a promise of severance and protection after a FBI supervisor muddled an operation that would have uncovered "bomb making materials" at a mosque, according to the complaint.
The lawsuit, seeking $10 million in damages, was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Jan. 22.
Monteilh, 47, spied on nearly a dozen mosques from July 2006 and October 2007 on the FBI's behalf, posing as a Muslim convert, the suit alleges.
Two of the mosques were in the San Gabriel Valley, including the Al-Nabi Mosque in West Covina and the Masjid Al-Fatiha mosque in Azusa, he said.
"The government will have an opportunity to respond to these allegations in court," said FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller. "However, the accusations appear to be an attempt to discredit law enforcement for personal gain, at the expense of the Muslim-American community."...
We've all been targeted for death by Islamic groups. That's what Islam does.
Personal gain at the expense of who/what?
Are these charges factual or not??? If they are pay him the money...If they are factual, he deserves every penny...
I suppose that it is not possible to sue the Islamic groups that are threatening him, is it?
This comment is off topic.
(Isabella, you might find this article of interest: http://badgerherald.com/oped/2010/01/29/womens_studies_shoul.php)
Spying at mosques or on Muslim groups is extremely dangerous work at the best of times. If the FBI failed to support this man, then it is not only appalling, it is extraordinarily stupid.
Who is going to volunteer for this hazardous work if they believe that they will not only be under threat by Islamists, but be abandoned by intelligence and law enforcement as well?
I have a lot of questions, as well. How did Craig Monteilh wind up in prison? Was this an extension of his undercover work at mosques?
This is what I found worst of all in the article:
"The government will have an opportunity to respond to these allegations in court," said FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller. "However, the accusations appear to be an attempt to discredit law enforcement for personal gain, at the expense of the Muslim-American community."
..........
How often does the FBI comment on ongoing cases like this? It sounds as though they have already decided that Monteilh will not get a fair hearing. That they are claiming that Monteilh is acting at *the expense of the Muslim-American community*—the very "community" that the FBI suspected of having bomb-making materials and that is now threatening Monteilh's life, could not be more craven.
The man is stuck between the two sides.
Stupid law enforcment in U.S.
Tanstaafl provided the following question/suggestion:
"I suppose that it is not possible to sue the Islamic groups that are threatening him, is it?"
This is actually a good idea, but at the same time raises some interesting problems.
In order for victims of such threats (or acts of violence, of which there are many as documented on this website) the plaintiff would need to tie the Islamic group in question to the illegal action in such a way that the courts would find it appropriate to find the organization to be vicariously liable for the actions of the person(s) who carried out the threats. One way to do this is to show that official representatives of the group aided and abetted the illegal activity.
There is a precedent for this sort of litigation being used successfully against violent organizations. The Southern Poverty Law Center successfully used this approach to target white supremacist organizations, gain judgments, and to help victims seize the assets of such organizations with judgments rendered in court. This was not an easy struggle, and the SPLC actually had its law offices firebombed at one point in time. It then raised funds to build new law offices which were more secure.
It is hard to get a big judgment for mere threats, so it might be better to bring an action such as this in response to an act of violent jihad, of which there are plenty now. The ideal case would be one in which a jihadist Imam could be shown to have preached a sermon advocating violence against some person (e.g. a fatwah against an individual who had commented on Mohammed or Islam) or group (e.g. infidels or Jews), and in which a jihadist member of the mosque went out and committed a violent crime in response to the Imam's suggestion. The tie to the mosque would made by proving that the Imam, a representative of the mosque, had aided and abetted the crime, if in no other way than by encouraging it. (Ironically, the aiding and abetting might be difficult unless the organization has been infiltrated by someone willing to risk such threats or violence, which is what this story is about.) Similarly, an Islamic organization could be targeted if it aided and abetted such criminal activity, or if its charitable funds were knowingly used to train terrorists who then committed a violent act, preferably on American soil.
The SPLC also sometimes got injunctions to protect victims of threats.
To my knowledge there is not yet any organization modeled on the SPLC which is suing mosques or other Islamic organizations, but this would be a suggestion to anyone out there who has the time and energy to try to create and staff such an organization (and defend it from firebombings or worse.)
Great minds think alike!
Morris Dees and the SPLC were going thru my (what passes for) mind when I wrote that. I have to guess that pursuing Mulsim hate groups is less trendy and more dangerous than going after the KKK, but you have to wonder why no one at the SPLC or ACLU is going after such an easy target. Maybe it's that vast left-wing conspiracy............
The ACLU knows what side the bread is buttered. Or put another way, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
There misguided agenda is more inline with the false agenda that the Islamic organization promote. When they figure it out it will be to late.