My local newspaper has a glowing writeup about Ramadan in today's news.
A couple of days ago there was an article about prayer, with the shahada in a special little box. Why was the shahada necessary?
2001 was only 7 years ago. We are falling all over ourselves as a nation to embrace those who want us dead.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 5, 2008 10:28 AM

Since 9/11 they have performed masterfully at tricking Liberal politicians and clergy that they are "moderate".

Their PR machine is awesome and we need to realize that in this fight.

Posted by: Axel Foley at September 5, 2008 10:34 AM

Qatanani praised as a "man of great will."

So was Hitler. So was Stalin. So was Mao Tse-toung. Men of "great will," all of them.

Posted by: Hugh at September 5, 2008 10:41 AM

Hell, I bet there are some Nazi party members who want to move here as well.

Posted by: tanstaafl at September 5, 2008 10:46 AM

Qatanani and his extended clan are all in the US and guilty of immigration fraud (among other things)

Quantanani's fans and followers have been mobbing the courthouse for weeks, if not months, on end to influence the outcome of this trial and to avert deportation.

"The justice system in this country is great."

Ironic that it is exactly this justice system he wants to abolish and replace with the sharia.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 5, 2008 10:49 AM

immigration Judge Alberto J. Riefkohl questioned the reliability of the records submitted by the Department of Homeland Security purporting to show Qatanani's arrest and conviction in Israel. The judge called the U.S. government's case against Qatanani "patently incomplete," and found its two key witnesses -- both federal agents -- to not be credible."
-- from a posting above

The only thing that is "incredible" here is an immigration judge, one Alberto J. Riefkohl, woh finds the Department of Homeland Security records not credible -- either Qatanani was or was not arrested and convicted in Israel, and it's not hard to check -- and who makes the curious remark that the case against Qatanani is "patently incomplete" (what does that mean?) and finds "its two key witnesses -- both federal agents -- to not be credible."

It is Riefkohl whose record needs to be examined, to see if on other cases he exhibits such hostility and suspicion of Federal authorities, and such naivete about Islam. And the same goes for Christopher Christie.

I'll repeat again here what I've suggested many times: special courts are needed, in all such cases involving either terrorism or other weapons of Jihad, with judges who have been made very familiar with the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of the...well, let's call it the "ideology of Jihad" and avoid the word "Islam" if we must.

Such courts are set up for cases involving tax law, and patent law. Some subjects are simply too complicated for judges and prosecutors. All cases involving identifiable threats, physical threats, and threats to undo our legal and political insitutions, including a steady assault on the key provisions of the First Amendment, arising from a political ideology "connected to an identifiable ideology" should be sent to courts where that "identifiable ideology" will have been studied by those judges, and everyone else involved in the case.

It has to come to that. The series of trial-court missteps, with people who pose an obvious danger managing to get off because of the ignorance or naivete or parti-pris of judges, or of even more confused juries, makes clear the need for such special courts.

Posted by: Hugh at September 5, 2008 10:53 AM

The JW headline is doesn't accurately reflect
the article. Neither the judge nor Qatanani's
attorney is alleged to have attended the iftar.
If Qatanani's lawyer did, then so what.

According to the article, it was a U.S. Attorney,
who is a lawyer for the federal government, and
other government officials, who partook of iftar
at the very mosque where Qatanani is imam.

The judge, ruling for Qatanani, ipso facto,
sided with Qatanani's attorney.

I think this clarification only makes the
situation more ... well, unfortunately,
it is no longer shocking.

---

Quoting the JW headline: "Though two federal agents assert he is linked to Hamas, the judge sides with his attorney who, after attending a Ramadan fast break in a mosque, concluded that the accused is a 'man of great will.' "

Quoting the AP article: "Riefkohl also noted that Qatanani has received support from U.S. law enforcement officials. One supporter, U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, was among several high-ranking law enforcement officials who attended a Ramadan fast-breaking celebration at the Paterson mosque."

---

ocelot

Posted by: Ocelot at September 5, 2008 11:10 AM

Aren't our government officials sooooo nice for letting this poor immigrant into our country where he will have a good opportunity to KILL US.

Posted by: Spot on at September 5, 2008 11:42 AM

Until Islam is transformed into a real religion in which individuals may join and leave at will without murderous threats based in hadith and sharia law, then all Muslim immigration is evil, not merely a handful of obvious terrorists like this guy.
Our political masters of sophistry and emotionalism like Kennedy, Biden, Obama, Bush and McCain have left our borders wide open and our immigration system in shambles, so even legal immigration is in a criminal state of political malpractice. It is obvious to some now. It will be overwhelmingly obvious to even the most uninformed Americans in a couple of decades, when we have 500 million people with 20% following Islam.
No amount of energy efficiencies will make up for doubling our population. The politicians who legislate for high immigration and Muslim immigration are equivalent to mass murderers, because that is what all historical evidence shows will happen when Islam, overpopulation and scarce resources mix.
http://www.bravenewsworld.com

Posted by: Max Publius at September 5, 2008 11:51 AM

"The justice system in this country is great."

That is for public consumption. Behind the scenes at his classes (i.e., when no one is looking) they curse the same system as irredeemably evil (ala Undercover Mosques)

Posted by: Axel Foley at September 5, 2008 11:52 AM

This post incorrectly quotes Christie.

According to the article, he did not say "man of great will."

He said "man of great goodwill."

Posted by: kamala at September 5, 2008 12:17 PM

Interfaith dialogue paid off for this Imam. He had a Rabbi as well as local political and law enforcement officials lined up to testify to his "moderation."

As I've asked so many times, what did the Jewish community, law enforcement or the citizens of NJ get out of those phony efforts at interfaith dialogue?

Did any of them ever consider that the whole interfaith dialogue game was just for the purposes of having witnesses and plausible deniability should his past ever catch up to him?

Did any of those convinced of his moderation ever investigate what he says when infidels aren't around? What does he tell his followers, who obviously believe they should immune to the laws of this country, while using the legal system against the rest of America to advance their aims?

Posted by: 4infidels at September 5, 2008 1:08 PM

And, I should add, this supposed "moderation" is so important because his mosque, and its previous Imam, had a history of "extremism."

Sound familiar?

Posted by: 4infidels at September 5, 2008 1:16 PM

". . .the judge sides with his attorney who, after attending a Ramadan fast break in a mosque, concluded that the accused is a "man of great will."

WTH?

If jury tampering and obstruction is illegal, why is this judge's behavior not called into question? There is a direct conflict of interest here.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at September 5, 2008 2:22 PM

He meant the Islamist's lawyer?

Posted by: undaunted at September 5, 2008 2:39 PM

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2008/00164NEW/index.html

It turns out this man is very forgiving. He grants, on average, more than half of asylum requests, in comparison with others in this area who deny more than ninety percent of asylum requests.

"If judges were ranked from 1 to 267 - where 1 represented the highest denial percent and 267 represented the lowest - Judge Riefkohl here receives a rank of 225. That is 224 judges denied asylum at higher rates, and 42 denied asylum at the same rate or less often."

Posted by: PMK at September 5, 2008 3:51 PM

This is a table of immigration court judges. New York is everywhere. It has four of the top ten (most denied) and half of the bottom ten (most granted).

Only one judge on the Newark court grants more requests than does Riefkohl. Over sixty-four percent of asylum seekers with lawyers have their asylum requests denied. Reifkohl grants almost that many.

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/160/include/judge_0005_name-r.html

Posted by: PMK at September 5, 2008 4:24 PM

The big lie:

"I was physically and mentally abused"

It's at this point the judge should have reached for his gun.

(unless he's a useless liberal appointee - anudder Ruth Bader Ginsberg clone)

Heaven help this great country.

Posted by: dgene at September 5, 2008 4:37 PM

Dhimmi is as dhimmi does. Dhimmi Country USA, almost as bad as EUrabia.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at September 5, 2008 5:47 PM

Hugh, you wrote:

"The only thing that is "incredible" here is an immigration judge, one Alberto J. Riefkohl, woh finds the Department of Homeland Security records not credible -- either Qatanani was or was not arrested and convicted in Israel, and it's not hard to check -- and who makes the curious remark that the case against Qatanani is "patently incomplete" (what does that mean?) and finds "its two key witnesses -- both federal agents -- to not be credible."

"It is Riefkohl whose record needs to be examined, to see if on other cases he exhibits such hostility and suspicion of Federal authorities, and such naivete about Islam. And the same goes for Christopher Christie."

You presented two possible factors for the judge's decision - 1. hostility [toward] and suspicion of, Federal authorities and 2. naivety about Islam.

There is, of course, a third possibility. Remember what happened, in Italy, to judges who tried to tackle the Mafia?

Now, the more I learn about Islam the more I see that on a great many occasions, members of the Ummah seem to behave like members of an organised crime syndicate (the biggest and oldest on the planet).

What if judges and lawyers, or for that matter, jury members, in this and other cases, are already being threatened by the Muslim Mafia? One knows the sort of thing - unless this case goes to our liking, we will do thus and so to your wife/ daughter/ sister/ parents/ friends, and don't think the Authorities can help you, because we have everything under control...

Fourthly there is, of course, bribery.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 5, 2008 6:03 PM

dda,
The court this man sits on is also peopled by judges who rejects over ninety percent of asylum claims. A lot of it is just plain liberal dogma.
One person accepts over ninety percent. She rejects fewer than ten percent of asylum seekers.

Posted by: PMK at September 5, 2008 6:41 PM

Americans don;t realize that petro-dollar works in mysterious ways. What does a terorrist getting green card have to do with petro-dollars? All Al-Sauds need to buy is POTUS.
Rest is take care of... but, to their peril, Americans were never good at connecting the dots. As the 9/11 Commission concluded. "Failure of intelligence", even when knowing POTUS first helped Bin Ladens to safety, then blackened all references to Al-Sauds fro, 9/11 commission report. And Americans re-elected the same POTUS.
Go figure.

Posted by: Alert at September 5, 2008 8:26 PM

Not that hard. The other guy was even worse.
One party dominates the coasts. The other dominates the heartland. There are more states in the heartland. They reelected POTUS.

Posted by: PMK at September 6, 2008 12:07 AM

Quatanani . very familiar name...

Posted by: Tartine at September 6, 2008 12:41 AM

This is a table of immigration court judges.

PMK

Thanks for shedding some light on the subject of judges.

Posted by: Spot on at September 6, 2008 5:54 AM

A walk down memory lane:

"Deportation trial under way for respected Passaic cleric'
-- headline of the article about Qatanani

WTF is a 'Passaic cleric?'

"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" and 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, a hearing that 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" (the same claims of "torture" are being made by every other person released from Guatanamo, 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) is reported, with a straight face, by this reporter.

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? Coudl she be studying for the AP American history exam, and conceivably not be a good and loyal American, 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 admjitted 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 9, 2008 7:26 PM

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 6, 2008 6:45 AM

One more, just to keep the records in order:

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

Fitzgerald: The respected cleric's deportation trial
"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: sheik yer'mami at September 6, 2008 6:48 AM

I wonder if he knows Obama........

Posted by: samhein at September 7, 2008 6:29 PM

I do not see what is so strange about this story. More than 90% of Muslims in the US have links to Muslim terrorists here in the US or abroad.

Posted by: American at September 8, 2008 10:10 AM