| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"Deportation trial under way for respected Passaic cleric” -- headline of this article about Qatanani
"Respected" by whom? For what? It is not the job of the reporter to tell readers what to think about Qatanani. If he is "respected" by his fellow Muslims, so what? Do we know exactly what others think of him? We do not. And it is not the reporter's job to take sides so blatantly.
The reporter's whole piece appears to have been written by the PR manager of the imam's campaign. There is, for example, this:
On the sidewalk outside the Peter Rodino Federal Building in Newark, hundreds of supporters gathered in a noisy but peaceful demonstration that lasted more than five hours. Throughout the day, Qatanani sat alongside his wife and six children, his youngest son reading the Koran while his daughter studied for her Advanced Placement U.S. history exam. His wife and three oldest children also face deportation; the younger children are U.S. citizens.
They were "peaceful" perhaps -- apparently we are supposed to be grateful for that -- but what does it mean when not a dozen but "hundreds" of people demonstrate, and not for a half-hour but for "more than five hours"? What does it mean when they do this not in front of, say, a store that it is claimed has unfair labor practices, but in front of the Peter Rodino Federal Building, in an attempt to influence a legal hearing? Such a hearing should never be the subject of five-hour, or one-hour, demonstrations, by "hundreds" or by a dozen people, who are attempting to influence the application of clear rules by those whose task it is not to admit, as citizens or permanent residents, those who lie on their applications.
And the reporter also suggests, falsely, that Qatanani simply appeared to report -- truthful fellow that the reporter wishes you to think he is -- sua sponte, that oh, yes, he had once upon a time been arrested and admitted to being a member of Hamas:
Federal agents, however, knew nothing of Qatanani's arrest until the imam contacted the FBI and told them about it in 2005, an FBI agent testified later in the day.
In fact, as one learns later in the story, Qatanani had lied on his green card application:
But on his green card application, Alicea said, Qatanani had answered "no" to a question asking applicants whether they had been arrested, fined, charged or imprisoned.
Furthermore, he did not simply appear and volunteer the information that he had previously lied. No, what happened is that the Qatatani was having trouble getting his green card, and he went in to discuss that matter. And he didn't show up simply to reveal a little "error" -- that is, lie -- on his original green card application. No, he showed up, and then was interrogated by an FBI agent, Angel Alicea. And it was in the course of that interrogation that he revealed that in fact he had been arrested, had been charged, had been imprisoned, all of which he had chosen previously to lie about on his green card application:
Angel Alicea, an FBI special agent serving on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, said he met with Qatanani after mosque officials called the bureau to discuss his green card application.Qatanani was frustrated, his lawyer said, because he was unable to get an interview with immigration officials and his work visa had expired, forcing the loss of his driver's license. "He thought we had something to do with it," Alicea said.
During that February 2005 interview, Alicea said Qatanani told him he had been arrested by Israeli soldiers a week after he crossed from Jordan to the West Bank in 1993 and that he was detained for three months, kept in a cold room and chained to a small chair.
Of course the absurdity of Qatatani's claim that such a "confession" was extorted from him through "torture" is reported, with a straight face, by this reporter. The same claims of "torture" are being made by every other person released from Guantanamo, the place where every prisoner gains 20-40 pounds, where the guards must wear gloves to touch the "Holy" Qur'an, and every conceivable effort is made to meet every demand of prisoners who are unrepentant, and often murderously dangerous in their behavior toward the despised Infidels who guard them.
So we are made to see, in this outrageously tendentious report, how heartless is a government that would deport this Good Man, this "respected cleric," this man who came in, we are led to believe, to volunteer information detrimental to his own case because, you see, like George Washington, he could not tell a lie, or rather, he simply could not live with himself if he had not owned up to his initial lie, and instead forthrightly told the truth (just ask agent Angel Alicea if that is how it went).
And there is this take-the-cake piquant detail:
Throughout the day, Qatanani sat alongside his wife and six children, his youngest son reading the Koran while his daughter studied for her Advanced Placement U.S. history exam. His wife and three oldest children also face deportation; the younger children are U.S. citizens.
So there he is. The put-upon truth-teller and respected pastor, with his wife, and his six children, with his youngest son reading the Koran, that holy book, and his daughter, studying like a good American child for the AP US history exam. Does anyone doubt that these must be good, true, loyal Americans? Could she be studying for the AP American history exam and conceivably not be a good and loyal American? Could she conceivably owe her allegiance to a Total Belief-System that flatly contradicts the spirit and letter of the American Constitution? And could she, and her siblings, and her mother, and her father, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood (why, he admitted it himself, to agent Alicea, perhaps hoping that by offering such an admission he would gain credibility for his denial that he was a supporter or member of Hamas -- which, he knew, was on the list of terrorist organizations while the malevolent Ikhwan is, as yet, not), really be risks to this country?
Oh yes they could.
Posted by Hugh at May 12, 2008 7:58 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Are you completely bonkers ????"
Americans do not have the right to peacefully assemble ?
Better re read the US Constitution
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 12, 2008 8:25 AM
Obviously, Americans have the right to peacefully assemble. That's hardly the point.
But this particular assembly, while peaceful, was being held for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a legal hearing.
Those hearing the case are supposed to be guided by the rule of law, not by a mob of noisy demonstrators.
I am showing my age by saying this, but when I was in elementary school we were taught that each of our rights carries with it a responsibility. In this case, the responsibility to recognize that some demonstrations, even though "peaceful", are still contrary to the rule of law.
So yes, Americans have the right to peacefully assemble. But no, this particular assembly should not have taken place.
Unfortunately, the participants of the demonstration were never taught, or simply don't care, about the whole "rights vs. responsibilities" thing.
Then again, the most of the participants were probably opposed the the U.S. Constitution anyway, and would much rather see it replaced by a somewhat different legal system, one which doesn't have as much in the way of rights.
Posted by: shortfattexan at May 12, 2008 8:51 AM
The citizenship issue can easily be resolved: revoke it.
Let the kiddies study the qoran in a Middle Eastern weed patch.
Posted by: HotSpur at May 12, 2008 9:27 AM
Of course American citizens have the right to peacefully assemble. The point is that we made a big mistake admitting masses of people from that part of the world to come here and become citizens in the first place - a mistake we are continuing. BTW, how many native born Americans have six children?
Posted by: RBLA at May 12, 2008 9:45 AM
Of course American citizens have the right to peacefully assemble. The point is that we made a big mistake admitting masses of people from that part of the world to come here and become citizens in the first place - a mistake we are continuing. BTW, how many native born Americans have six children?
Posted by: RBLA at May 12, 2008 9:46 AM
Imam's defense: He was tortured into 'confessing' he joined Hamas
They are all supposed to claim torture.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf
Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 12, 2008 9:52 AM
The right to peacefully assemble is not absolute, any more than the right of free speech is absolute. There can be, have been, limits placed on demonstrations -- for example, on demonstrations outside of abortion clinics.
The courts -- and the Supreme Court -- have been ordinarily solicitous of the right to peacefully assemble, and that includes sidewalks across from courthouses -- see Cox v. U.S. -- and attempts to limit the kind of signs one carries, for example, outside the Supreme Court have been struck down (U.S. v. Grace).
On the other hand, disruption and riot have been held to be legitimate reasons for the police demanding that certain demonstrations be disbanded.
Here we have a new situation. What is that new situation? It is the systematic attempt, by large numbers of Muslims, to show up, and to intimidate by numbers and by the ferocity of the demonstration, jurors and judges. No statement is being made about politics; in size and scope this amounts to sheer intimidation. And it is systematic.
I hope that there will be legislation forbidding this kind of thing, and then let it be challenged in the courts, and percolate upwards to the Supreme Court where, I have hope, intelligent war-time limits -- there is a war being conducted against our legal and political institutions, and that includes our legal and political institutions.
And that war, a war to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then ultimate dominance, of Islam, includes efforts by the American government to enforce its own immigration and naturalization laws, and certainly would include an attempt to prevent any future efforts to intelligently strip of citizenship those who were perjuring themselves when they took an oath of allegiance to the American Constitution.
The unrandom, systematic, well-organized attempt to show up at courthouses where every so-called "pillar of the Muslim community" brings suit in an attempt to defy American justice, and to throw a spanner into the works, constitutes a campaign, and there are ways that should be attempted to limit those who are so hell-bent on using our liberties to undo those very liberties.
Let the laws to intelligently limit, in such cases, such courthouse behavior, be passed -- and then let the constitutional challenges be brought.
We'll see what limits, in the case of such a sinister, widespread, and systematic effort to undo our ability to defend ourselves against those whose loyalty is not to, and cannot be to, the Constitution but is, rather, to Islam and the Umma, the Supreme Court is willing to accept, and what reject.
It's a good subject -- a subject that requires, however, that one understand the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam, and of how Islam, or rather the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, in spirit and letter flatly contradicts the American Constitution. That understanding should not be difficult, if one is willing to study, and not simply refuse to consider the textual and historical evidence.
Posted by: Hugh at May 12, 2008 10:18 AM
BTW, how many native born Americans have six children?
Posted by: RBLA
More than you might think. (My parents had nine, but of course that was the baby boom.) Today, much of our population growth comes from immigrants, though there are still Americans who cherish large families. To hear the experts, but for immigrants, the US would lose population every year. This means we need more and more immigrants in order to finance that Ponzi scheme otherwise known as Social Security.
As for this imam: did he fill out a green card application before or after gaining entry? If he lied on the green card, shouldn't his US-born children be stripped of citizenship? (That has been one proposed interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants birthright citizenship to all persons born in the US. If the parents aren't here legally then the children are not citizens.)
at May 12, 2008 10:30 AM
Check this out:
from the excellent Australian Islamist Monitor, about the infiltration of the universities.
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1360&Itemid=64#jc_allComments
And this is what happens when suckers buy into couscous & petro- dollars:
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/05/12/australia-monash-university-succumbs-to-islam/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 12, 2008 10:56 AM
suckers buy into couscous & petro-dollars
Come on sheik, don't talk about my couscous like that! Near East is an American company that says it buys its grain from growers throughout North America.
Posted by: PMK at May 12, 2008 11:21 AM
Excellent post, Hugh. Intelligent, rational, and oh so true. Thanks for your comment.
Posted by: golfdad at May 12, 2008 12:49 PM
"The reporter's whole piece appears to have been written by the PR manager of the imam's campaign."
Posted by Hugh at May 12, 2008 7:58 AM
Hugh, I read the article, and that was my take too. Seems like our task is daunting, to confront not only the newsmakers, as in this case, but the reporter of the news as well.
So I am wondering to myself, does the writer, Brian Donohoe, realize what a dupe he is for the stealth jihad? ... not likely. But his article had a distinct anti-Israel flavor, and he seemed oh so noncommittal when discussing whether the Muslim Brotherhood has terrorist ties.
Posted by: Paleologos at May 12, 2008 1:17 PM
I don't have any problems with a peaceful demonstration outside a court building or other public hearing. It's as American as apple pie. Al Sharpton has been leading demonstrations in the Bell case for a couple weeks now (and not always all that peacefully).
The problem is when a Judge, Jury or other public officials, who are sworn to uphold the law, allow themselves to be influenced by the demonstrators.
Unfortunately, political correctness is rampant in our soiciety, including in the Judicial system, so demontrators have ready-made allies already in place in hearings like this.
That's the real danger.
Posted by: rational
at May 12, 2008 1:31 PM
This is pretty much a parochial phenomenon in the NYC area, and it’s not just Muslims who are indulging in it.
I don’t understand what Sharpton is doing. It is tasteless for anyone to use civil disobedience to influence a judicial decision. I can’t recall that Dr. King ever did so.
There are other local examples of demonstrating in front of a courthouse to get ones way.
Everyone has the right to free assembly, but no one has the right to look good doing it.
at May 12, 2008 2:30 PM
I think it difficult to design legislation keeping a horde of Muslims from demonstrating outside of a courtroom today which will not be applied tomorrow to keep a group of Americans from performing the same activity. The illegitimacy is not in the act, but in the purveyors. Non-Americans don't have the same rights as Americans.
I don't want the rights of Americans, Anglo-Americans, English, Graeco-Roman-Judeo-Christian, Western peoples to be constrained merely because Muslims have chosen by way of their beliefs to be unfit to wield these rights. Better to directly rid society of them than to empower our government to forbid peaceable assembly. Ex-Muslims are likely welcome to stay. Those who have not made the choice likely not.
One of the greatest things about Anglo-American-Judeo-Christian-Graeco-Roman-Western culture is that can be adopted by anybody regardless of the prison of skin color or other accidents of birth, and it can be rejected as well.
The only instance of government which fears Anglo-American-Judeo-Christian-Graeco-Roman people is tyranny. The rights enumerated in the US Constitution are sacrosanct for us. However, those in our midst who choose to not participate in our culture have no entitlement to these rights.
at May 12, 2008 7:34 PM
A quiet, dignified and informative Infidel counter-demonstration, expressing appreciation of, and loyalty to, the Laws and Institutions of the United States (or, of the UK, or Canada, or whichever country, as appropriate) is what should start happening, whenever the Muslim rent-a-crowd turns up outside a courthouse in the Infidel lands for a high-profile Muslim-vs-Infidel trial.
Infidels in major cities are going to have to start getting together teams of volunteers who are sufficiently flexible in their use of time (e.g. fit retirees, self-employed, housewives) to be willing and able to respond to a call to 'be there and be seen' at fairly short notice, complete with folding chair, tastefully written placard, and accurately referenced leaflets explaining the unpleasant fact that classical orthodox Islam teaches contempt for non-Muslim laws, institutions and governing authorities - which, of course, includes our police force and our courts.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 13, 2008 12:41 AM
Hugh, I'm not as confident with the Supreme Court. Why, they cannot even bring a definition of the embryo to be (adjective describes the noun) human life. Ulterior motives appear to, at times, present themselves and warp the sages thought processes.
Distinguish between the muslim follower and their leaders. The follower knows little of the book and does what everyone else does. The leader has read the book and knows his duty is to encourage the subjugation of all humanity to Islamic Allah, doing so by any means necessary, with the most fervent and passionate leaders for this totalitarian goal considered to be the best and the brightest scholars and leaders of Islam. Given this, what exactly is the Supreme Court suppose to decide upon when they perhaps enact or impose restrictions on these demonstrators? The Supreme Court is not the correct— it's not the best tool if the goal is simply to restrict their presence.
Posted by: k24anson at May 13, 2008 9:09 PM
dumbledoresarmy, I missed reading your post directly above my last post. And I agree totally; your idea is a practical solution and what I couldn't think of and find to conclude the thoughts to my last post!
Posted by: k24anson at May 13, 2008 9:18 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)