Recently in courtroom jihad Category

Islamic supremacists and their Leftist allies game the system, get a thug acquitted, and then gloat about it. "'Zionists always lose' chant as SOAS cheekbiter is acquitted of assault," from the Jewish Chronicle, January 26:

A PhD student who bit a pro-Israel campaigner on the cheek at SOAS Israel Apartheid Week has been acquitted of assault.

Mohammed Abdelkarim was accused of biting Dean Gold on the face during a tussle on March 20 last year, smashing his camera to the ground. He was cleared of both assault and criminal damage. Palestine Solidarity Campaign activists in the public gallery cheered and whooped as the verdict was announced, shouting, "Zionists always lose," at Mr Gold's family and friends as they left court.

The scuffle took place as Mr Gold was filming an unidentified man making obscene remarks about the Holocaust.

In footage played to the court, an elderly black man rants to the camera: "Six million Jews lined up outside the gas chambers like lambs to the slaughter." Mr Gold said: "I was very distressed. I thought, this must be illegal. I remembered I had my camera, so I asked him if he minded being filmed."

Mr Abdelkarim is then heard approaching and asking the man if he minds being filmed, telling the man he will "knock it [the camera] off" if he does not wish to be filmed.

But the subject replies: "I have nothing to hide." Mr Gold alleged that Mr Abdelkarim then launched himself at him. "He was growling and my cheek was pinned between his teeth, I felt like he was trying to bite my ear off. I could feel his breath and him moving towards my ear. My cheek was clamped, vice-like, in his teeth."

The defence argued that it was Mr Abdelkarim who had been first punched by Mr Gold, and then pinned in a bear hug, before resorting to biting Mr Gold in order to free himself.

Srikantharajah Nereshraaj, defending, said the pro-Israel activists had been present to "disrupt, antagonise and provoke reactions" at what he described as a "Palestinian cultural event."

Mr Abdelkarim said the Israel campaigners had apparently ignored his requests not to take pictures of his two young children. Israeli film student Roy Goldman, who was called as a witness, agreed that he had been filming and taking pictures at the event.

Mr Abdelkarim told the court he was "not a political person" and had come to the event with his family for food and face-painting. "I did not want my children appearing in any footage at all," he said. He had noticed Mr Gold filming. "I could see they [his children] would appear in the background."...

Islamic supremacists have a thing about filming. At our various AFDI/SIOA rallies, they film all of us incessantly, but when pro-freedom activists try to photograph or film them, they're shouted at, abused, and even attacked.

The murderer of Rabbi Kahane was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, rather than being a "lone crazed gunman." No surprise there: it's all the same jihad. "No new trial for Egyptian in NY killing that brought to US terror spawned by Islamic extremism," from the Associated Press, January 12:

NEW YORK — An Egyptian man who introduced terrorism inspired by Islamic extremism to U.S. shores when he assassinated an anti-Arab rabbi in 1990 has lost his latest bid for a new trial.

El Sayyid Nosair’s claim that he discovered new evidence to overturn his 1995 conviction was rejected in an order made public Thursday. Nosair, 56, is serving a life sentence after he was convicted of seditious conspiracy for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government through acts of terrorism.

U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell said Nosair did not file his claims in a timely manner, waiting more than a year after learning information from reading books that led him to believe the government had failed to properly inform his lawyers about information that might have helped him at trial.

The judge, though, did review the trial to some extent, concluding that “mountains of evidence” demonstrated Nosair’s role in a conspiracy that also resulted in the conviction of blind Egyptian Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. Abdel-Rahman, the spiritual leader of some of the men convicted in the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing, is serving a life sentence.

At the time of the World Trade Center bombing, Nosair was in state prison after his conviction on weapons charges related to the assassination of Jewish Defense League founder Meir Kahane at a Manhattan hotel. Nosair, once thought to be a lone crazed gunman in the killing, was charged in federal court after FBI agents studied the evidence in the trade center bombing and realized some of the future trade center bombers may have even been in the room during the killing.

The judge said the evidence made it clear that Nosair plotted to wage war on the United States....

David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise have ably represented AFDI in our freedom of speech cases against several cities that refused to run our ads offering help to those threatened because they left Islam, or in fear of honor killing. Yerushalmi has also been at the forefront of crafting truly effective anti-Sharia legislation. Now they've joined forces to create the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC):

Lawyers Join Forces to Create Formidable Organization

Having collaborated for over four years on many high-profile cases, attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert J. Muise have decided to formalize their working relationship by together launching the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC). Yerushalmi, an orthodox Jew, and Muise, an orthodox Catholic, describe AFLC as the Nation’s first truly authentic Judeo-Christian, public interest law firm.

According to Yerushalmi and Muise, they formed AFLC because they share the firm conviction that the strength of our Nation lies in its commitment to a Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation and to an enduring faith and trust in God and His Providence. This intersection between our Judeo-Christian values and the preservation and security of our Nation has garnered the interest and support from several prominent leaders, including former CIA Director R. James Woolsey; former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan and current President of the Center for Security Policy Frank Gaffney; Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice; former Inspector General for the Department of Defense Joseph Schmitz; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney and current contributing editor to National Review Andy McCarthy, all of whom will be serving on the AFLC advisory board.

Through AFLC, Yerushalmi and Muise seek a return to what they describe as “America’s founding commitment to receive God’s continued blessing for America.” Yerushalmi commented, “AFLC will fight for faith and freedom by advancing and defending America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral foundation through litigation, education, and public policy programs. Fighting for our Judeo-Christian values is more than simply defending religious liberty; it is fighting for the very survival of our Nation.” He added, “Throughout history, great nations have fallen from within. Make no mistake, America is a blessed Nation, but only so long as it remains faithful to the Judeo-Christian values upon which it was founded.”

Yerushalmi and Muise have pledged to aggressively fight those who seek to undermine and destroy our Nation’s founding principles. They view secular progressives and organizations such as the ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as domestic enemies to the Judeo-Christian values reflected in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They vow to fight the “civilization jihad” being waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and other sharia-driven Muslims operating within the United States, including CAIR.

What is AFLC? It is first and foremost a public interest litigation firm. Muise explained the pressing need for an organization like AFLC: “To great effect, elite secular progressives are systematically assailing and destroying our Nation’s moral foundation. Driven by a transnational world view that is hostile to our Nation’s Judeo-Christian values, progressives are zealously sweeping religion from the public square, foisting sharia law and other harmful international precedents into our courts and Constitution, assaulting the traditional family, and weakening our national defense by — among other things — undermining the strength of our military through social engineering and political correctness. Our traditional liberties hang in balance. And for good or ill, this battle for America’s soul is being waged in the courtrooms across America.”

Probably Zemanik was required to give her a lunch break after she worked a certain number of hours, even if she wasn't going to eat. The diocese should not have settled in this ridiculous victimhood-mongering legal shakedown case, but probably figured it was easier than fighting it and being subjected to endless charges of "Islamophobia."

"Muslim woman settles lawsuit against Easton church," from the Pocono Record, January 3 (thanks to Twostellas):

A Muslim woman who claimed she was fired from her job as a bookkeeper at an Easton church because she complained about religious discrimination by the monsignor has settled a federal lawsuit she filed against the Diocese of Allentown.

The terms of the settlement between Omayma Arafa and the diocese have not been disclosed in court documents, and attorneys on both sides of the case did not return phone calls seeking comment.

A settlement conference had been scheduled for Dec. 22 in Philadelphia, but before the hearing, the parties notified federal Magistrate Judge L. Felipe Restrepo they had reached a settlement. Restrepo dismissed the case Dec. 16.

Arafa worked at St. Anthony of Padua Church in Easton from 2007 until January 2009, when she was let go. Her lawsuit, filed in May, said the trouble began when Monsignor Edward Zemanik was assigned to the church and immediately displayed a "cold, distant and hostile attitude" toward Arafa, who is from Egypt.

One day in August 2008, the suit says Arafa was eating pizza for lunch when Zemanik asked "You can eat that?" He went on to ask Arafa whether there were foods she couldn't eat, according to Arafa's suit.

The diocese's response, filed in June, says Zemanik asked about Arafa's dietary restrictions out of respect for her religious beliefs because the staff often ordered meals and he didn't want to bring in food that she was forbidden to eat.

Arafa's suit also alleged that during Ramadan, the month of fasting when Muslims refrain from eating during daylight hours, Zemanik required Arafa to "take lunch," even though it meant sitting in her office not eating.

The diocese claims Zemanik insisted that his staff take a break during the day, even if they did not eat lunch.

In December 2008, Arafa said she asked Zemanik whether she would have the week off between Christmas and New Year's Day as paid vacation. She alleges Zemanik asked "What do you care?" in a display of hostility toward Arafa's religious beliefs.

In its response, the diocese denied Zemanik made the remark.

Arafa also claimed she was denied health care benefits that other part-time employees in the parish received. The diocese says those employees worked part time at St. Anthony and part time elsewhere in the diocese to qualify for benefits.

Arafa said she complained to the diocese's human resources director about the alleged discrimination by Zemanik and a church volunteer, but no action was taken. She claims she was fired as retaliation for complaining about her treatment.

The diocese said it eliminated Arafa's job at the church as a cost-saving measure.

The lawsuit sought compensation for Arafa's back and future pay; pain, suffering and humiliation; and punitive damages.

This is the trial in which the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the smoothly deceptive Islamic apologist Jamal Badawi and so many other Muslim groups and individuals were named unindicted co-conspirators.

"Fifth Circuit: Holy Land Foundation convictions upheld on appeal," by Jason Trahan for the Dallas Morning News, December 7 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Today a Fifth Circuit judicial panel released a highly anticipated opinion affirming the convictions against the five organizers of the former Richardson-based Holy Land Foundation on charges that they conspired to funnel money to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.

The first trial in 2007 ended in a hung jury, but the retrial the next year resulted in across-the-board convictions on charges of material support of terrorism.

Ghassan Elashi, of Richardson, a Holy Land Foundation founder, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Shukri Abu Baker, of Garland, who was Holy Land's CEO, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Mufid Abdulqader, of Richardson, was a top volunteer fundraiser and sang about Hamas in a Palestinian band that played at fundraising rallies, received 20 years for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Abdulrahman Odeh, who started Holy Land's office in New Jersey, received 15 years in prison for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Mohammad El-Mezain, an imam who ran Holy Land's office in California, received 15 years in prison for providing support to Hamas.

The HLF, once the largest Muslim charity in the United States, had been under investigation for years before it was shut down by the Bush administration months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In their appeals, defense attorneys argued that the government's use of anonymous Israeli witnesses and other issues resulted in an unfair outcome for their clients, two of whom are serving 65-year sentences....

Blaming the Jews. What a novel strategy for Islamic supremacists!

Muhammad, the supreme example of human conduct (cf. Qur'an 33:21), ordered the killing of dogs:

"Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, 'We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.'" -- Sahih Bukhari 4.54.50

"Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert." -- Sahih Muslim 10.3811

He also clearly considered them unclean, as indicated by the washing instructions here: "Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time." -- Sahih Muslim 551

In accord with such teachings, observant Muslims generally consider dogs unclean, dislike them and don't want to be around them. So this actress warned in her ad that she had a dog, so Muslims wouldn't want the job. And now here again, noticing the truth about Islam, when that truth is unpleasant or jarring to Western sensibilities, is "racism."

"Actress 'banned Muslim handymen' over chihuahua worries," from The Local, December 1 (thanks to David):

One of France's most well-known singers and actresses, Marie Laforêt, will today appear in a Paris courtroom to defend herself against charges that a job advertisement she placed discriminated against Muslims.

72-year-old Laforêt, who first found fame as an actress in the 1960s, placed an ad on an internet site looking for someone to carry out some work on her terrace in 2009, reported daily newspaper Le Parisien on Thursday.

She specified in the ad that "people with allergies or orthodox Muslims" should not apply "due to a small chihuahua."

Laforêt claimed that she made the stipulation because she believed the Muslim faith saw dogs as unclean.

The case was taken up by anti-discrimination organization Mrap, which lodged a complaint against the internet site which ran the ad.

"To think that Marie Laforêt is racist is just stupid," said her lawyer, David Koubbi, according to the newspaper. He said the words in the advertisement were only a "warning."

Koubbi added that the star "has always shown her interest and admiration for the Muslim faith."

"She knew that the presence of a religion could conflict with the religious convictions of orthodox Muslims. It was a sign of respect."

Experts in the Muslim faith were quoted as rejecting the defence.

"Dogs are not considered unclean and it's false to suggest otherwise," said one quoted by the newspaper.

This unnamed expert in the Muslim faith has thereby revealed that Iraq's Ayatollah Sistani is not the expert on Islam that he appears to be, but is actually a greasy Islamophobe. For Sistani includes dogs in his list of unclean things:

The following ten things are essentially najis [unclean]:

1. Urine
2. Faeces
3. Semen
4. Dead body
5. Blood
6. Dog
7. Pig
8. Kafir [unbeliever -- i.e., non-Muslims]
9. Alcoholic liquors
10. The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat [unclean things].

Automobile accidents, jihadi style: "Killing rampage suspect goes on trial," by Naama Cohen-Friedman for Ynet News, November 10 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

The trial of Issa Ibrahim Islam, a truck driver who went on a killing rampage on Nakba Day, opened at the Tel Aviv District Court on Thursday.

The Kfar Kassem resident is accused of killing 29 year-old Aviv Morag and injuring 17 others while recklessly driving a truck along Bar-Lev Street in Tel Aviv last May. The driver also ran over several vehicles during the rampage.

A psychiatric evaluation submitted by the prosecution found Islam fit to stand trial, and determined that the defendant was lucid while he committed the act.

During the hearing, eyewitness recounted the horrors of that Sunday morning, as they were commuting to work and school: "He screamed 'Allahu Akbar' and then threw the traffic light on my head," recalled Shani Oz, one of the witnesses.

"The truck collided into my car and the back windshield shattered to pieces," said Amitai Asif, "People were scared. I had blood all over my face even after being taken into the ambulance," he noted.

According to the indictment, Islam carried on with his rampage even after colliding into several vehicles. "The defendant did not stop, but rather stepped on the gas and continued his killing spree," the indictment read.

The trial opened a week after David Morag, the father of the victim killed during the rampage, committed suicide.

"Aviv was his whole world," said a friend of the family, "The last few months were very difficult for him, and the holidays were even twice as hard."

Islam's defense attorney, Yehosua Resnik, rejected the accusations, claiming that "the incident was nothing more than an accident that went wrong."

Shame on you, Yehosua Resnik.

He just wanted to become a better Muslim, and so he contacted Anwar al-Awlaki for advice. Oddly enough, apparently he didn't know any Muslims who explained to him that al-Awlaki was a Misunderstander of Islam who would lead him astray into the Tiny Minority of Extremists. An update on this story. "Texan terrorism suspect denies intention to harm," by Juan A. Lozano for the Associated Press, November 8:

HOUSTON — A Texas man accused of trying to sneak out of the country with restricted U.S. military documents, money and equipment in order to join al-Qaida told a judge Monday that he wanted to leave because he disagrees with American foreign policy and that he never intended to hurt anyone.

Barry Walter Bujol Jr. told the court during opening statements at his trial that he wanted to leave to become a better Muslim and that he never meant to join or support a terrorist group.

“My desire to leave the United States was not to commit acts of terrorism … but simply to express my discontent and displeasure with my tax dollars and what I was doing as a citizen with foreign policy objectives I didn’t agree with,” said Bujol, who addressed the court from a wheelchair because of a leg infection.

Federal prosecutor Garrett Heenan painted a very different portrait of the 30-year-old defendant, telling U.S. District Judge David Hittner that Bujol exchanged emails with the U.S.-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki.

“Bujol had emailed al-Awlaki seeking guidance regarding jihad. Al-Awlaki responded by emailing a terrorist manifesto entitled, ‘42 ways of supporting jihad,’” Heenan said.

Al-Awlaki, who had ties to al-Qaida and who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in September in Yemen, is alleged to have exchanged emails with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people in the November 2009 Fort Hood shootings.

Bujol, who is a U.S. citizen, dismissed his court-appointed attorneys and was representing himself at his trial, which was being heard by a judge instead of a jury, at his request....

Bujol was arrested in May 2010 after using fake identification to sneak into a Houston port and board a ship bound for the Middle East, Cannon said....

According to court documents, Bujol used at least 14 email addresses to hide his activities from authorities and he advocated attacking U.S. facilities where military weapons were manufactured.

Authorities say Bujol made three unsuccessful attempts during February and March 2009 to travel to Yemen or the Middle East....

Cannon said to find out if Bujol was serious about joining al-Qaida, the task force used an undercover informant who befriended Bujol and posed as a recruiter for al-Qaida for the Arabian peninsula. Cannon said Bujol eventually agreed to a plan in which the informant would help him travel to the Middle East by sneaking him on the ship at the Houston port.

The plan also called for Bujol taking to al-Qaida operatives a bag the informant had given him that contained GPS receivers, two nonpublic restricted-access Army manuals and other items, the FBI agent said.

Bujol said he “never praised al-Qaida operations,” that it was the informant who suggested he join the terrorist group....

Prosecutors played a video Monday that they say Bujol left behind for his wife to find after he had made it overseas.

In the video, he talked about his leaving the U.S. as being the “most important decision of my life” and that he’s “doing good work.”

Near the end of the video and over an image of a person carrying a rocket-propelled grenade, he asks his wife to “pray for us … pray for victory.”

The video also featured images of killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and men kneeling down before AK-47 rifles.

Bujol, who lives in Hempstead, about 50 miles northwest of Houston, was set to plead guilty in the case in October 2010, but he changed his mind.

Of course. Courtroom jihad is so much more fun.

I am just about to board a Southwest flight. If I get removed for working on "Jihad Watch" in the gate area, I'll let you know.

Irum Abbasi may have been wrongly singled out. Nonetheless, the involvement of Hamas-linked CAIR in her case is just one of many red flags. In reality, no one should be shedding any real tears for Irum Abbasi, especially Irum Abbasi. She says, "I have lived in the United States for 10 years. I am a U.S. citizen." So if she is a loyal U.S. citizen, she should understand that what happened to her is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that devout, observant Muslims worldwide, including hijab-wearing women, have carried out jihad terror attacks in the name of Islam, and so people who are entrusted with the safety of airline passengers have every reason to err on the side of suspicion. Those who are thus inconvenienced should consider it a small price to pay in order to head off the next terror attack.

I speak from experience. More than once I have been held and questioned at airports because of my work. Once I was working on this website on my laptop, someone saw "jihad" on my screen, and presently I was surrounded by police and large dogs, and hauled off for questioning.

Another time I was in an airport, having hurried from a venue where I had just given a talk. I don't ever speak from a written text, but I sometimes do carry notes -- a page or two of quotations from various Muslim Brotherhood operatives, etc., including jihadist and Islamic supremacist statements by some putative American moderate Muslims, as well as quotations from the Qur'an and Hadith, etc. I had this material in my suit pocket, and it dropped out without my noticing when I took off my suit jacket to go through security. So a few minutes later I was again in the friendly presence of police and TSA personnel. One gentleman was holding up my notes and asking me why I had this material. I started laughing, because I realized that there was absolutely nothing in the notes to show that I actually opposed what was written there -- and realized that it might take awhile to straighten the whole thing out.

And it did. But I didn't mind. Because I knew what they were doing. I knew they weren't holding the bearded, swarthy fellow with notes full of jihad hate because they were racists and bigots, and didn't like people of Middle Eastern descent, or hated Muslims, or what have you. They were doing their job, which was to protect the American people. Irum Abbasi and Hamas-linked CAIR should realize that, and I think they do. They should also realize that we are on to them.

"Muslim woman removed from Southwest flight sues," from AP, October 7 (thanks to all who sent this in):

SAN DIEGO (AP) – A Muslim-American woman who was removed from a plane in San Diego last spring sued Southwest Airlines on Thursday, alleging she was discriminated against because she was wearing an Islamic head covering.

Irum Abbasi, a psychology graduate student at San Jose State University who is a U.S. citizen, filed the lawsuit in federal court in San Diego.

"Suspicions were aroused because of her religion," Abbasi's attorney, James McElroy, said at a news conference. "She would not have been removed from the plane if she had been a blond-haired, blue-eyed woman."

Abbasi, a mother of three, was taken off the San Jose-bound flight in March as it was about to depart after a flight attendant thought she heard her say "it's a go" on her mobile phone.

Abbasi "was horrified, embarrassed, humiliated and confused," the lawsuit stated.

In fact, Abbasi had said "I have to go" because the plane was about to depart, according to the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages.

Abbasi was searched and given clearance to reboard the flight within three minutes, but the pilot claimed the crew was uncomfortable flying with her and refused to allow her aboard.

She was given an apology, a voucher and a boarding pass for the next San Jose flight. As a result, she missed a critical research experiment that she needed to be able to complete for her graduate studies, the lawsuit said.

Chris Mainz, spokesman for Dallas-based Southwest Airlines Co., said the airline apologized to Abbasi for her inconvenience and her concerns were addressed "in good faith."

"In this case, our employees raised a safety concern based on the customer's behavior, and we had a duty to thoroughly address those concerns before clearing the customer to travel," Mainz said in an emailed statement....

Don't they know that Islam is a Religion of Peace™?

"Live blog: Prospective jurors fear terrorist retribution in accused underwear bomber trial," by David Ashenfelter for the Detroit Free Press, October 5 (thanks to Block Ness):

[...] The next prospective juror, who works for a large bank, said he is concerned about serving on the jury because he fears retaliation. He cited a car bombing as an example of retribution. Edmunds tried to assure him that juror names would never be made public.

“I wasn’t aware of that, but I also know it’s a public building and we’d come and go every day,” he said. Edmunds told him he’d be escorted in and out of the building by U.S. Marshals through a separate entrance. He said that was somewhat reassuring and would try not to let his fears get in the way of giving the defendant a fair trial.

Chambers asked that he be excused from jury duty. Edmunds disagreed. He's the 26th person to be placed in the jury pool.
10:20 a.m. [...]

We've concluded that the Nigerian immigrant is a woman based on her testimony. The challenges of reporting on an anonymous jury selection.

Edmunds just added a 23rd prospective juror, an automotive electrical engineer who said in his jury questionnaire that he as strong opinions against terrorism. He said he watched the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapse on television at work on Sept. 11, 2001. But he said he can be a fair juror. He said he initially thought Abdulmutallab was guilty, but changed his mind after Edmunds met with jurors a few weeks ago when they were called downtown to fill out questionnaires.

From a statistical standpoint, he thinks most defendants are found guilty, but he said the statistics won’t play any part is his mind if selected to serve.

We now have 18 women and five men in the jury pool.
9:31 a.m. [...]

Edmunds just added another juror, a Nigerian immigrant who said he has no feelings one way or the other about the defendant being Nigerian. “It doesn’t make a difference to me personally,” he told Edmunds.

Unlike many other prospective jurors, this man, a former English professor back home, likes to keep up with the news. Asked he would avoid news if asked to serve, he said: “That’s a tough one.” But he said he can forego coverage of this case if asked to serve. He has only one concern about serving – his name becoming public.

We are watching the proceedings on a close-circuit television feed from her courtroom. We can’t see the prospective jurors, who will serve anonymously if selected. But some of Edmunds’ questions have brought responses that would make it fairly easy to identify a couple of potential jurors. Edmunds has ordered reporters to stay away from jurors, a no-brainer for any experienced journalists. Violations can result in contempt citations.

He’s in.
9:17 a.m.

He is clearly a convinced Islamic jihadist. He believes that the Qur'an teaches that Muslims should wage war against unbelievers, and that Muhammad engaged in that warfare in a way that Muslims should emulate. And Muslim advocacy groups in the U.S. feel no obligation to explain how and why they reject Abdulmutallab's version of Islam, or what they're doing to prevent Muslims here from picking it up. And no one ever challenges them on that. "Airline attack suspect starts trial with outburst," by Ed White for the Associated Press, October 4 (thanks to Block Ness):

DETROIT (AP) -- A Nigerian man accused of trying to bring down an international jetliner with a bomb in his underwear walked into the start of his federal trial Tuesday and declared that a radical Islamic cleric killed by the U.S. military is alive.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's outburst came as jury selection got under way for his federal terror trial in Detroit, where the 24-year-old is acting as his own attorney and has previously told reporters they should stop reporting that Osama bin Laden was dead.

"Anwar is alive," Abdulmutallab said Tuesday, referring to American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed last week by a joint CIA-U.S. military air strike in Yemen.

"The mujahadeen will wipe out the U.S. - the cancer U.S.," he added.

Abdulmutallab, a well-educated Nigerian from an upper-class family, was directed by al-Awlaki and wanted to become a martyr when he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam on Christmas 2009, according to the government....

"A well-educated Nigerian from an upper-class family"? Doesn't AP know that poverty and ignorance cause jihad?

The judge has denied several of Abdulmutallab's requests for the trial, including that the case be judged under Islamic law.

Abdulmutallab has pleaded not guilty to eight charges, including conspiracy to commit terrorism and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. The government says he wanted to blow up the plane by detonating chemicals in his underwear, just seven minutes before the jet carrying 279 passengers and a crew of 11 was to land at Detroit Metropolitan Airport....

This Misunderstander of Islam also shouted something about defending Muhammad: "Accused underwear bombing changes clothes, shouts about Mohammed, 'cancer of U.S.' during jury selection," by Tresa Baldas and David Ashenfelter for the Detroit Free Press, October 4 (thanks to Block Ness):

Jury selection in the trial of bombing suspect Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab started this morning with more courtroom antics, and a wardrobe change.

The terror suspect entered the courtroom and shouted “Sheik Anwar’s alive.” He also said something about wiping out the “cancer of the U.S.” followed by a claim to “defend Mohammed.”

After his courtroom outbursts, U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds entered the courtroom and urged the suspect to change from a t-shirt into a shirt with a collar. He took her advice and left the courtroom, returning in a pin-striped black suit coat, his usual khakis, and black wingtips.

At one point, Edmunds told Abdulmutallab, a 24-year-old Nigerian student, he could not wear a Yemeni belt with a dagger -- the outfit that he had proposed wearing to court. She said that would be inappropriate....

Oh, it sounds perfectly appropriate to me.

In "The Jihad Lawyer" in the American Thinker today, Pamela Geller profiles Islamic supremacist lawyer Lamis Deek, defender of jihad terrorists:

The New York Times reported last week that the Islamic supremacist lawyer Lamis J. Deek, who is representing Ahmed Ferhani in his trial for a jihad plot to blow up a synagogue, also represented for a short time the undercover cop who helped put together the case against Ferhani.

Deek denies there was any conflict of interest: "There was no conflict of interest and there existed between UC 242 [the name by which prosecutors are referring to the undercover detective] and I [sic] no attorney-client privilege." But the larger point is Deek's pattern: she has a history of representing the most unsavory Islamic supremacists and jihadists.

She became interested in the undercover cop when he received a disorderly conduct summons for refusing a police officer's orders to leave a sidewalk on September 11, 2010, during a protest over the Islamic supremacist Ground Zero Mosque. The undercover operative was with a mob of supporters of the mosque -- and that's why he caught Deek's eye.

Meanwhile, she is still representing Ferhani, who is accused of a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue that police have refused to identify. The undercover cop recorded Ferhani and his jihadi brother, Mohamed Mamdouh, talking about disguising themselves in Jewish garb to allay suspicions as they approached the synagogue they intended to destroy.

"We will blow up a synagogue in Manhattan and take out the entire building," Ferhani said. Mamdouh declared, "I hate Jews," and Ferhani responded: "I want to kill them."

No wonder Lamis Deek took his case. She is the lawyer for the Muslim American Society group that in 2010 began attempting to build an illegal mega-mosque structure (a rabat) on a quiet, tree-lined street in Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn (a street
with no churches or synagogues or businesses). The Muslim Brotherhood, according to a 2004 Chicago Tribune exposé, operates in the U.S. "under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members." The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated, in its own words, according to a captured internal document, to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house."

Deek has also been affiliated with the radical organization Al-Awda. Al-Awda has been named one of the top ten anti-Israel groups in the country, and made the initial list of Threats to Freedom groups compiled by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) -- you can find the full list in my book Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Read it all.

Let him speak. Let the world hear him preach Islam and jihad and explain that that was why he murdered thirteen people in cold blood. Let the world see a jihadist justifying his actions. "Fort Hood suspect's defense has few options," by Angela K. Brown for the Associated Press, July 9:

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — More than two dozen soldiers have testified about the day they were shot in a crowded Fort Hood building in November 2009. Some told of looking the gunman in the eye as he fired. A Senate investigation has announced its findings about the suspect: before the rampage, the Army psychiatrist had become an Islamic extremist and a "ticking time bomb."

Now the defense team for Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder, faces what seems like an impossible task of preventing a conviction and potential death sentence in one of the highest profile cases in military history.

Hasan, 40, who remains jailed and was paralyzed after police shot him that day, could go to trial later this year at Fort Hood, the Texas Army post about 125 miles (200 kilometers) south of Fort Worth. On Wednesday, Fort Hood's commander ordered Hasan, who is of Palestinian descent, to stand trial after reviewing documents from last fall's evidentiary hearing.

For the defense lawyers, "there are huge challenges in this case — challenges that may not be present in other capital cases," said Richard Stevens, a military defense attorney who is not involved in the case....

"People will want to hear the other side during the court-martial, but what could he possibly say in his defense?" said Staff Sgt. Jeannette Juroff, who was working in a nearby building that day and helped wounded soldiers....

A U.S. Senate report released earlier this year charges that evidence of Hasan's radicalization was "on full display" to his military superiors, and that an instructor and colleague "each referred to Hasan as a 'ticking time bomb,'" but no action was taken to discharge him and his evaluations were sanitized.

A joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI learned late in 2009 of Hasan's repeated contact with U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who encouraged Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The FBI has said the task force did not refer early information about Hasan to his military superiors because it concluded he wasn't linked to terrorism....

But Hasan's defense team could argue that he has mental illness without using an insanity defense — especially if he's convicted and they are trying to avoid a death sentence.

"Sometimes one prong of the (mental health evaluation) report will show that a defendant has a mental issue like depression, and the defense can use whatever is in that report at sentencing as mitigating factors," said Greg T. Rinckey, a New York attorney who defends military clients and is not involved with the Hasan case.

That defense tactic was used in the 2005 trial of Sgt. Hasan Akbar. His attorneys didn't dispute that he threw grenades into fellow soldiers' tents in Kuwait in 2003 and then fired on them. But they said he was mentally ill — although legally sane. Akbar was convicted and sentenced to death. His case remains on appeal....

Akbar was not mentally ill unless jihad is a mental illness.

Until May of this year, the Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn, better known to some by his initials DSK, was the influential head of the International Monetary Fund. His arrest in New York City in May of this year on sexual assault charges has been one of the most spectacular and possibly over-reported news stories of 2011. DSK's downfall has had all the elements of a long-lived scandal: a powerful personality, accusations of a violent and heinous crime, and all brought about by a mere hotel chambermaid. There was more than a whiff of schadenfreude in the media's accounts that eagerly reported on DSK's initial detention at Riker's Island in New York, right down to his daily routine, meals, and even what sort of clothes he had to wear while incarcerated. DSK's reputation as a womanizer who has had numerous liaisons over the years has done little to help his case.

Of course, it just so happens that DSK's accuser, a housekeeper at the Sofitel New York, is duly described in many media accounts as a "...very pious, devout Muslim woman."  And it also so happens that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Coincidence? 'Coincidence' may be what many have thought up to this point, but it may be time to revisit this assumption.

And here's why. Six weeks after DSK's initial arrest, more information is now emerging about DSK's accuser, a woman who migrated from the African nation of Guinea to the US. And these revelations are the reason why the legal case against DSK is unraveling with such amazing speed. Mr. Strauss-Kahn has in fact already been released from house arrest.

The migrant from Guinea, who came into the United States on an asylum claim in 2004, has apparently lied from beginning to end. Her story that her husband was killed opposing the regime in Guinea and she was forced to flee her homeland was all a lie. She lied about her finances in order to secure public housing. She claimed a friend's child as her own in order to increase her Federal tax refund. She has had numerous associations with criminals, including her own boyfriend who is now languishing in an Arizona prison. And her own story of her supposed encounter with DSK has changed over the last six weeks, chock full of inconsistencies. In other words, she's emerged as about the worse sort of witness imaginable for the prosecution.

Probably the most damning evidence to come to light is the fact that, while DSK's accuser spoke to her incarcerated boyfriend by phone, she is reported to have said, in effect, that "...DSK has a lot of money and I know what I'm doing." She attempted to hide these intentions by speaking in an African dialect, but apparently the Feds were listening and eventually had it translated.

This is not the first time a Muslim has tried to run an extortion racket against an 'infidel', with the only difference now being that the target was a very high-profile one. Many Muslims have long been noted for their intimate involvement in the criminal underworld, exploiting Westerners, running welfare scams, and in general 'parasiting' non Muslims and western society at every opportunity. The case against DSK appears to be but a recent and high-profile instance of 'stealth' or 'legal' jihad, when Muslims attempt to exploit the infidels' own laws for maximum advantage.

Why would a Muslim, and a 'pious, devout' one at that, be so adept and experienced at lying? Surely Islam has nothing to do with this woman's pathological lying, and nothing to do with her criminal attempts to extort money from a powerful, rich Jew. Of course.

As jihad-minded and Islamic supremacist Muslims continue to pour into the US and other Western countries, permitted to do so by clueless or complicit authorities, the next attempted shakedown (high profile or otherwise) is but a matter of time. What happened to Dominique Strauss-Kahn will eventually happen again.

More courtroom jihad and victimhood mongering. A lunch break during Ramadan! Break out the thumbscrews! Probably the diocese was required by law to make sure she took a lunch break. Only a Muslim well versed in the victimhood game that Hamas-linked CAIR and others play so frequently would turn that into an insult. "Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Diocese Of Allentown: Woman Claims She Was Fired For Being A Muslim," by Kyle Andersen for WFMZ-TV, June 9 (thanks to Twostellas):

ALLENTOWN, Pa. -- The Diocese of Allentown has found itself the target of a lawsuit that claims a woman was fired for being a Muslim.

Omayma Arafa filed the federal lawsuit against the Diocese in May.

The lawsuit states Arafa, who is a Muslim from Egypt, had no problems as an employee of the Diocese until August 2008, when her supervisor changed.

In the lawsuit, Arafa said her new supervisor, a Monsignor, was not respectful of her religion. She said during Ramada in 2008 he forced her to take a lunch break, even though all she could do was sit at her desk and do nothing since she could not eat.

Arafa said she was fired because the Diocese claimed they could hire an outside company for cheaper than keeping her employed. She claimed since she was a part-time employee who was not offered benefits, the outside company could cost the Diocese much more than her salary.

Arafa also claims she was never offered health insurance, but two other part-time employees, who were not Muslim, were.

She also said the Diocese eventually gave her responsibilities to a younger, non-Muslim male.

Arafa is seeking back pay and damages in the lawsuit....

An article from IslamOnline (posted several years ago and since taken down, but captured here) shows how Mark Elchardus could have gotten this horrific Islamophobic idea:

Dear Sheikh! As-Salam `Alaykum. What, according to the Qur’an, are the main characteristics and qualities of Jews?

Answer: [...] As regards the question you posed, the following is the fatwa issued by Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, in which he states the following:

“The Qur’an has specified a considerable deal of its verses to talking about Jews, their personal qualities and characteristics. The Qur’anic description of Jews is quite impartial; praising them in some occasions where they deserve praise and condemning them in other occasions where they practice blameworthy acts. Yet, the latter occasions outnumbered the former, due to their bad qualities and the heinous acts they used to commit.

The Qur’an praises them on the verse that reads: “ And verily We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture and the Command and the Prophethood, and provided them with good things and favored them above (all) peoples.” (Al-Jathiyah:16) i.e. the peoples of their time.

Among the bad qualities they were characterized with are the following:

1. They used to fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah. Allah Almighty says: “ That is because they say: We have no duty to the Gentiles. They speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.” (Al-`Imran:75) Also: “The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will.” (Al-Ma`idah:64)

In another verse Almighty Allah says: “Verily Allah heard the saying of those who said, (when asked for contributions to the war): "Allah, forsooth, is poor, and we are rich! We shall record their saying with their slaying of the Prophets wrongfully and We shall say: Taste ye the punishment of burning!” (Al-`Imran:181)

2. They love to listen to lies. Concerning this Allah says: “and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk” (Al-Ma’idah: 41)

3. Disobeying Almighty Allah and never observing His commands. Allah says: “And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts.” (Al-Ma’idah: 13)

4. Disputing and quarreling. This is clear in the verse that reads: “Their Prophet said unto them: Lo! Allah hath raised up Saul to be a king for you. They said: How can he have kingdom over us when we are more deserving of the kingdom than he is, since he hath not been given wealth enough?” (Al-Baqarah: 247)

5. Hiding the truth and standing for misleading. This can be understood from the verse that reads: “…distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture.” (Al-`Imran: 78)

6. Staging rebellion against the Prophets and rejecting their guidance. This is clear in the verse: “And when ye said: O Moses! We will not believe in thee till we see Allah plainly.” (Al-Baqarah: 55)

7. Hypocrisy. In a verse, we read: “And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe; but when they go apart to their devils they declare: Lo! we are with you; verily we did but mock.” (Al-Baqarah: 14) In another verse, we read: “Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to practice it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye then no sense?” (Al-Baqarah: 44)

8. Giving preference to their own interests over the rulings of religion and the dictates of truth. Allah says: “…when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?” (Al-Baqarah: 87)

9. Wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them. This is clear in the verse that reads: “Many of the People of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them.” (Al-Baqarah: 109)

10. They feel pain to see others in happiness and are gleeful when others are afflicted with a calamity. This is clear in the verse that reads: “If a lucky chance befall you, it is evil unto them, and if disaster strike you they rejoice thereat.” (Al-`Imran:120)

11. They are known of their arrogance and haughtiness. They claimed to be the sons and of Allah and His beloved ones. Allah tells us about this in the verse that reads: “The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones.” (Al-Ma’idah: 18)

12. Utilitarianism and opportunism are among their innate traits. This is clear in the verse that reads: “And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences.” (An-Nisa’: 161)

13. Their impoliteness and indecent way of speech is beyond description. Referring to this, the Qur’anic verse reads: “Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey; hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few.” (An-Nisa’:46)

14. It is easy for them to slay people and kill innocents. Nothing in the world is dear to their hearts than shedding blood and murdering human beings. They never give up this trait even with the Messengers and the Prophets. Allah says: “…and slew the prophets wrongfully.” (Al-Baqarah: 61)

15. They are merciless and heartless. In this meaning, the Qur’anic verse explains: “Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks, or worse than rocks, for hardness.” (Al-Baqarah: 74)

16. They never keep their promises or fulfill their words. Almighty Allah says: “Is it ever so that when ye make a covenant a party of you set it aside? The truth is, most of them believe not.” (Al-Baqarah: 100)

17. They rush hurriedly to sins and compete in transgression. Allah says: “They restrained not one another from the wickedness they did. Verily evil was that they used to do!” (Al-MA’idah:79)

18. Cowardice and their love for this worldly life are their undisputable traits. To this, the Qur’an refers when saying: “Ye are more awful as a fear in their bosoms than Allah. That is because they are a folk who understand not. They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified villages or from behind walls. Their adversity among themselves is very great. Ye think of them as a whole whereas their hearts are divers.” (Al-Hashr:13-14) Allah Almighty also says: “And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters.” (Al-Baqarah:96)

19. Miserliness runs deep in their hearts. Describing this, the Qur’an states: “Or have they even a share in the Sovereignty? Then in that case, they would not give mankind even the speck on a date stone.” (An-Nisa’:53)

20. Distorting Divine Revelation and Allah’s Sacred Books. Allah says in this regard: “Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands anthem say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.” (Al-Baqara: 79)

"Belgium Muslim organization sues sociologist for making link between Islam and antisemitism," from the Ahlul Bayt News Agency, May 31 (thanks to Twostellas):

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - The Vigilance Musulmane (Muslim Vigilance) think-tank lodged a complaint with the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight Against Racism (CGKR) against VUB professor of sociology Mark Elchardus, for statements about Islam and antisemitism he made in the De Morgen newspaper.

On May 12 the newspaper published the results of a study 'Jong in Brussel' by the Youth Research Platform. In the article Mark Elchardus said that antisemitism among Muslim students was theologically inspired and that there is a direct link between being Muslim and harboring antisemitic feelings.

Vigilance musulmane played the usual cards: claiming that this amounted to saying that all Muslims thought this way, which is a logical fallacy, and claiming also that Elchardus was trying to incite "hate":

Vigilance musulmane say that this goes back to the idea that every Muslim is antisemitic. His statements incite the public opinion to hate all Muslim citizens on the basis of their religious convictions. The think-tank say Elchardus' claim violates the anti-discrimination law of 2007 , which forbids discrimination on the basis of 'religious convictions'. They say his statements also violate article 444 of the penal code, since they were repeated extensively in print.

The think-tank wants CGKR to legally review this type of public statement, and if it applies, to act appropriately.

In other words, to quash the freedom of speech about Islam, which longtime Jihad Watch readers will know has for years been at the forefront of Islamic supremacist efforts in the West.

Here we go yet again: the entrapment defense is becoming increasingly popular among jihadists in the United States. It is especially preposterous here. These Fort Dix jihad plotters shouted "Allahu akbar" when their convictions were upheld on an earlier appeal. One rejected the American legal system and tried to get the judge to convert to Islam. While they were plotting to murder Infidels at Fort Dix, one of them said, “I’m gonna do it….It doesn’t matter to me, whether I get locked up, arrested, or get taken away, it doesn’t matter. Or I die, doesn’t matter, I’m doing it in the name of Allah.” Another said, “They are the ones, we are going to put bullets in their heads, Allah willing.”

If they were entrapped, I'm a mujahid.

And so I will ask one more time: what would it take for you to commit mass murder in the name of Allah?

Would you do it for money? For love? Out of a sense of justice? Out of a sense of religious duty? Would you do it because an agent provocateur encouraged you?

Absurd as they may seem, these remain serious questions, for as jihad mass-murder plots are being uncovered in the United States more frequently than ever, those accused of perpetrating them, and several Islamic groups, increasingly are charging entrapment: that overzealous FBI agents pushed poor innocent Muslims into taking part in a jihad plot that otherwise would never have existed.

The problem with this line of thinking is that no amount of encouragement could get the average American non-Muslim to participate in a plot to commit mass murder. The Fort Dix jihadists must have already been predisposed to this sort of thing.

"5 Muslim immigrants appeal NJ terror convictions," from AP, May 23:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Attorneys for five Muslim immigrants convicted of plotting a deadly strike at a New Jersey military base will challenge the Patriot Act as they appeal the convictions.

The lawyers argue that FBI informants entrapped their clients. They say the discussions amounted to little more than a religious debate about jihad.

They will also challenge the constitutionality of a Patriot Act provision used to seize video the defendants left at a store for reformatting.

The footage shows the defendants firing assault weapons and screaming about jihad.

Federal prosecutors acknowledge the men did not necessarily have a specific plan to attack Fort Dix.

Four of the young men are serving life terms. They lived in Philadelphia and suburban New Jersey....

One of the effects of this case, whatever its outcome, will be to make agents at the border extra-careful when inspecting Muslims: they will be careful not to do anything that might land them in a lawsuit. And so the ultimate result of this suit will be that Muslims will receive lighter scrutiny than non-Muslims at the U.S.-Canada border. And there is no problem with that at all, because everyone knows that Muslims never commit violence in the name of their faith.

"U.S. probe to look at border concerns of Muslims," by Niraj Warikoo for the Detroit Free Press, May 7 (thanks to Mackie):

The U.S. government has launched an investigation into allegations that federal agents at several U.S.-Canada border crossings in Michigan repeatedly harassed, jailed and body searched Muslims because of their background or appearance.

In a letter sent this week to a local Muslim group, Margo Schlanger, the head of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the Department of Homeland Security, said her office has received accounts of "repeated handcuffing, brandishing of weapons, prolonged detentions, invasive and humiliating body searches at the border, and inappropriate questioning that pertains to religion and religious practices."

The complaints include incidents at the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron.

The investigation comes in response to complaints filed in March by the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.

The council said it was concerned that agents were even asking people about their prayer schedules.

Muslims, Arab Americans, south Asians and other minorities have complained for years about being harassed at border crossings. Now, some say it's getting worse.

"It really makes you feel humiliated," said Wissam Charafeddine, 34, of Dearborn, who says he gets repeatedly jailed at the border. "It doesn't make you feel like you're in America."...

Jailed for planning a protest? How was that even possible in America? For refusing to pay a "peace bond"? Wouldn't the responsibility for any disturbance be upon those who decided to react to whatever Jones was doing by causing the disturbance? Pamela Geller says it here: "The city of Dearborn's position is that Muslims are so violent and irrational that they won't be able to control themselves if Jones holds a protest? And he has to pay for damages? Why wouldn't the marauding Muslim hordes pay the damages if they are doing the damage? And if they get violent, why aren't they in jail?"

She also points out the inconsistency, here: "Terry Jones was sent to jail in Michigan over a planned protest outside the largest Islamic Center in the U.S. I have seen the most vile displays of subversion, anti-Americanism, Jew-hatred and violence at anti-war rallies during the Bush years. No one said boo. It's free speech. The KKK marches, no one says boo, it's free speech. Monsters protest military funerals, it's free speech. Nazis in Skokie? A-OK. But Islamic jihadis launch the most brutal and bloody attack on America on September 11, 2001, and we haven't stopped apologizing. And now we have turned over our soul, the heart of our freedom."

More on this story. "Pastor Is Jailed in Michigan Over Planned March at Mosque," from the Associated Press, April 22 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — A Florida pastor at the center of a Koran-burning controversy was jailed briefly for refusing to pay what the authorities called a “peace bond” for a planned demonstration outside a mosque.

The pastor, Terry Jones, whose remarks against Muslims have inflamed anti-Western sentiment in Afghanistan, said he refused to pay the $1 bond because doing so would violate his freedom of speech. He was released from jail hours later after paying the $1....

The bond also prohibited Mr. Jones from going to the mosque or the adjacent property for three years.

Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, said the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is the police’s job to protect speakers at such events and said it is unconstitutional to require protesters to post a bond for police protection.

A Koran burning in March at Mr. Jones’s church in Gainesville, Fla., caused protests in Afghanistan that killed more than a dozen people. The Wayne County prosecutor, Kym Worthy, said fears that Mr. Jones could incite violent counterprotests led them to court.

Mr. Jones represented himself and told the jury that the mosque, one of the largest in the country, was chosen because his protest was against “a radical element of Islam.”

“All we want to do is walk, demonstrate, protest on an area that already belongs to you, to the city,” he said. “We are not accusing this mosque. We are not accusing the people of Dearborn. We are not accusing all Muslims.”

What would it take for you to commit mass murder in the name of Allah?

Would you do it for money? For love? Out of a sense of justice? Out of a sense of religious duty?

Absurd as they may seem, these are serious questions, for as jihad mass-murder plots are being uncovered in the United States more frequently than ever, those accused of perpetrating them, and several Islamic groups, increasingly are charging entrapment: that overzealous FBI agents pushed poor innocent Muslims into taking part in a jihad plot that otherwise would never have existed.

"Nobody was pushing them," said Raskin. "They did it because they wanted to do it."

Of course they did.

Islamic Chutzpah Alert: "NY judge asked to toss temple plot conviction," by Tom Hays for the Associated Press, March 24 (thanks to Block Ness):

NEW YORK (AP) -- Lawyers for four men in a terror plot to blow up New York City synagogues and shoot down military planes sought to convince a judge Thursday that their convictions - and even the case itself - should be thrown out because they were entrapped by a paid FBI informant posing as an Islamic extremist.

Prosecutors argued the defendants were ready and willing to attack Americans.

The daylong arguments in a Manhattan federal court centered on the government's attempts to thwart homegrown terrorism by monitoring mosques and other locations for potential militants and, if necessary, using elaborate sting operations to neutralize them before they can do any harm.

In one of several pointed exchanges, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon noted that the scheme detailed at trial was phony from the outset.

"The plot was created before our very eyes in this courtroom," she said.

Responded Assistant U.S. Attorney David Raskin: "The law allows that to happen."

A jury found the men - alleged mastermind James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen - guilty last year of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction and other charges....

Prosecutors alleged that in meetings with Hussain, Cromitie hatched the scheme to blow up the synagogues in the Bronx with remote-controlled bombs and shoot down cargo planes at the Air National Guard base in Newburgh with heat-seeking missiles. They say he also recruited the other men to be lookouts with promises of money. Onta and David Williams are not related....

In one of several videos played at trial, the men were seen inspecting a shoulder missile launcher in a bugged warehouse in Connecticut two weeks before the planned attack. At the end of the tape, Cromitie, two of his cohorts and the informant bow their heads in prayer.

Jurors also heard tapes of Cromitie ranting against Jews and U.S. military aggression in the Middle East

"I'm ready to do this damn thing," Cromitie said on one tape. "Anything for the cause."

The defense renewed arguments that the FBI overreached by targeting desperate, down-and-out dupes who were only in it for the petty cash and meals the informant gave them. Cromitie wavered for eight months - and even disappeared for six weeks - before finally agreeing to go forward with the plan, said defense attorney Vincent Briccetti.

"He talked the talk, but when it came to walking the walk, he didn't - until he was entrapped," he said.

Bricetti also accused authorities of misconduct by losing control of the informant - "an out-and-out total liar" - and allowing him to incite Cromitie to kill Jews.

"The government created the criminal and then they manufactured the crime," he said.

Raskin countered that the evidence showed Cromitie was the instigator, approaching the informant at the outset and later confiding unprompted that being a terrorist would fulfill a childhood ambition.

"Nobody was pushing them," he said of the defendants. "They did it because they wanted to do it."

They made her take off her hijab for security reasons, but who cares about security when Muslim practices must be accommodated?

"Muslim defendant can sue over hijab removal," by Bob Egelko for the San Francisco Chronicle, March 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

SAN FRANCISCO -- A law guaranteeing religious freedom to prisoners applies to a courthouse holding cell where sheriff's deputies ordered a Muslim woman to remove her headscarf, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 11-0 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit by Souhair Khatib against Orange County, where officers made her take off her hijab for security reasons while she was held in the cell to await a court hearing.

The law, passed by Congress in 2000, prohibits the government from imposing a "substantial burden" on prisoners' religious practices unless officials can show a compelling need for the restrictions.

The Obama administration joined Khatib in arguing that the law applied to courthouse holding cells....

The court returned the case to a federal judge to decide whether the deputies interfered with Khatib's religious freedom without a compelling security need. Becky Kieffer, a lawyer for Khatib, said federal prisons allow Muslim women to wear approved headscarves and that the county should follow their practice.

The county could also appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Khatib and her husband pleaded guilty in 2006 to a misdemeanor welfare crime, which Kieffer said involved receiving overpayments. They were placed on probation and ordered to perform 30 hours of community service apiece.

When they went to court to ask for an extension of the community service deadline, a judge revoked their probation and put them in holding cells, where deputies ordered Khatib to remove her hijab.

She stayed in the cell most of the day, trying to cover her head with her vest. When she was brought into court, the judge extended the deadline and restored her probation.

Khatib says her religion forbids her to expose her head or neck to men outside her immediate family. She sued the county for damages.

Who ever heard of jihad terror activity being plotted in a mosque? This kind of surveillance is outrageous! "Lawsuit alleges FBI violated Muslims' freedom of religion," by Jerry Markon for the Washington Post, February 22 (thanks to all who sent this in):

An FBI informant who infiltrated a California mosque violated the constitutional rights of hundreds of Muslims by targeting them for surveillance because of their religion, the ACLU and a Muslim group said in a lawsuit Tuesday.

The lawsuit, filed against the FBI and seven of its agents and supervisors, focuses on the actions several years ago of Craig Monteilh, a paid FBI informant. Monteilh has said he was instructed to spy on worshipers at an Irvine mosque in a quest for potential terrorists, allegations that prompted fierce criticism of the FBI from some Muslims in Southern California and nationwide.

The lawsuit alleges that Monteilh was ordered by his FBI handlers to conduct "indiscriminate surveillance" of Muslims, violating their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Filed on behalf of three Muslim plaintiffs, the 64-page document seeks class action status, unspecified damages and a court order instructing the FBI to destroy or return the information Monteilh collected.

"The FBI should be spending its time and resources investigating actual threats, not spying on every American who happens to worship at a mosque,'' said Peter Bibring, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, which filed the complaint along with the Los Angeles office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

FBI officials declined to comment on the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, but empasized that they are careful not to violate civil liberties when they use informants and do not target anyone based on religion or ethnicity. [...]

FBI and Justice Department officials say that they have gone to great lengths to maintain good relations with Muslims and that the Monteilh case is not representative of those efforts. Some Muslims say the revelations about Monteilh have seriously damaged their relationship with the FBI....

No Muslims ever say that revelations about jihad terror activity have seriously damaged their relationship with the FBI, and that consequently they will redouble their efforts to demonstrate their loyalty to the U.S. and wholehearted rejection of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism.

Ali Malik, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who helped teach Monteilh about Islam at the Irvine mosque, said the Muslim community has yet to recover from Monteilh's actions.

"A lot of people now see the mosque as a place where the government can just come in and spy on you,'' said Malik, who says he has been questioned by the FBI several times since his dealings with Monteilh. "It's going to take a long time to heal those wounds.''

Of course the wounds are all on his side. There are no wounds on the psyche of non-Muslims from the use of mosques to preach hatred; to spread exhortations to terrorist activity; to house a bomb factory; to store weapons; to disseminate messages from bin Laden; to demand (in the United States) that non-Muslims conform to Islamic dietary restrictions; to fire on American troops; to fire upon Indian troops; or to train jihadists. No, none of that calls for any action on the part of Muslims at all to try to heal the wounds of non-Muslims, or to cooperate with inspection of mosques. One would think that "moderates" who deplored "terrorism" and had nothing to hide would be eager to welcome law enforcement personnel into their mosques so as to make sure they weren't used as bases of operations by members of the Tiny Minority of Extremists™.

Rami Saba is on trial for murder, and he is busy proselytizing. Does he think that an expression of Islamic piety will make the jury go easy on him -- or even be afraid not to go easy on him, for fear of charges of "Islamophobia"? Courtroom Jihad in Michigan: "Rami Saba, of Lowell, wants to invoke Allah's name at trial in Saranac man's death," by John Agar for The Grand Rapids Press, February 4 (thanks to Twostellas):

GRAND RAPIDS - Rami Saba, accused of kidnapping and killing 66-year-old Saranac resident Donald Dietz, wants to invoke the name of Allah throughout his upcoming murder trial.

"As the Honorable Court is well aware, mentioning the name of Allah in every matter is of essence for the defendant, by the grace of Allah," Saba wrote in a brief to U.S. District Judge Janet Neff.

He shared a verse, and said that "the above verse is the main reason why the defendant, either when talking or when writing, diligently seeks to mention the name of Allah, even as frequently as once in every sentence, when possible, because the defendant is seeking refuge in Allah from being counted among the hard-hearted ones who do not mention Allah; and that is the truth from Allah, the Gracious, the Gentle."

The government objected to Saba's plan to make repeated references to Allah.

"While there is a scarcity of specific case law condemning the practice suggested by Defendant Saba, the general rules of relevancy, character and conduct are instructive," U.S. Attorney Donald Davis wrote in his response.

He said Saba's religion is not relevant to the case, and could be used to improperly bolster or vouch for testimony.

Saba is representing himself at trial but will have standby counsel.

Saba, who was working as a financial planner, and his boyhood friend, Raogo Ouedraogo of Philadelphia, are accused of killing Dietz to gain his $450,000 in life savings....

"Defense attorney Joseph Balter said Martinez will plead not guilty and 'vigorously contest the charges.' He has raised entrapment as an issue." The charges of entrapment are silly for Muhammad Hussain or any Muslim caught in a terror plot to try to pursue. Think about it: what would it take to lead you to participate in a terrorist mass-murder plot? If undercover agents approached you and tried to entice you into working to kill large numbers of innocent people, how hard would it be to convince you to do it?

Speaking strictly for myself, I have absolutely no worries of ever being entrapped in this way; there is simply nothing, under any circumstances, that anyone could say to me to convince me to blow anyone up. And so if someone showed up and started trying to cajole me into doing so, I would find him irritating, but I wouldn't even come close to doing anything that would enable anyone to portray me as guilty of anything. Muhammad Hussain, in contrast, went ahead with his jihad mass-murder plot. Law enforcement agents are not to blame for his choices.

"Indictment returned in Md. bomb plot," from UPI, December 22:

[...] Antonio Martinez, 21, a recent convert to Islam who changed his name to Muhammad Hussain, was charged by a federal grand jury Tuesday in Baltimore with attempted murder of federal officers and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, The Washington Post reported.

He is accused of trying to kill members of the military, whom he saw as enemies of Muslims...

Defense attorney Joseph Balter said Martinez will plead not guilty and "vigorously contest the charges." He has raised entrapment as an issue.

Prosecutors assert the attack was Martinez's idea and he refused chances to back out. He did not work with any terrorist group, authorities said.

She asked for "almost three weeks of unpaid leave" so that she could go on the hajj. She wrote that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj," although since a Muslim has his or her entire lifetime to perform the hajj, it's unclear what would have made it impossible for her to justify delaying doing so -- was she in imminent danger of death?

If she wasn't, there was no reason why she had to go on the hajj at that time. And since the Islamic calendar is a lunar one with a year of 355 days, the time to perform the hajj moves by ten days every year. All she had to do was wait until the time for the hajj fell during summer vacation, and then there would have been no problem.

But instead, she demanded three weeks of leave. Yet three weeks of leave, even unpaid, out of the school year is a significant chunk of time -- after all, the school year is only about nine months long. So she is essentially demanding to keep her job despite being away for nearly a tenth of the time during which the job is to be performed.

And now Obama's Justice Department, ever accommodating to Islamic demands, is suing on her behalf. Yet this is clearly just another attempt to force American workplaces to change the way they operate in order to accommodate Muslims, once again reinforcing the principle that where Islamic law and practice and American law and practice conflict, it is American law and practice that have to give way.

"Justice Department Sues School for Refusing to OK Teacher's Pilgrimage to Mecca," from the Associated Press, December 13 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The federal government sued a suburban Chicago school district Monday for denying a Muslim middle school teacher unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca that is a central part of her religion.

In a civil rights case, the department said the school district in Berkeley, Ill., denied the request of Safoorah Khan on grounds that her requested leave was unrelated to her professional duties and was not set forth in the contract between the school district and the teachers union. In doing so the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices, the government said....

Khan started as a middle school teacher for Berkeley School District 87 -- about 15 miles west of Chicago -- in 2007. In 2008, she asked for almost three weeks of unpaid leave to perform the Hajj. After the district twice denied her request, Khan wrote the board that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj," and resigned shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago.

Berkeley School District compelled Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, the lawsuit said.

The government asked the court to order the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees' religious practices and beliefs, and to reinstate Khan with back pay and also pay her compensatory damages....

Ahmed Abu Ali was valedictorian in 1999 of the Islamic Saudi Academy in Northern Virginia. Apparently he misunderstood all their instruction about how Islam is a Religion of Peace.

Courtroom Jihad, tying up Infidel time and resources: "Terrorist to appeals court: life term is too harsh," by Larry O'Dell for The Associated Press, December 9 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

RICHMOND, Va. -- The life prison term given to a U.S. man who joined al-Quaida and plotted to assassinate then-President George W. Bush was unreasonably harsh when compared to sentences in comparable terrorism cases, the man's lawyer told a federal appeals court Thursday.

A government attorney countered that U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee properly concluded that Ahmed Abu Ali's case was unique and that his lack of remorse demonstrated that he would be a danger to others if ever released from prison.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides before taking Abu Ali's request for a new sentencing hearing under advisement. The court usually takes a few weeks to rule.

Abu Ali was born in Houston and grew up in the Washington suburb of Falls Church, where he was valedictorian of a private Islamic high school. He joined al-Qaida while attending college in Saudi Arabia and discussed numerous potential terrorist attacks, including a plot to assassinate Bush, and planned to establish a sleeper cell in the United States....

Campbell said the likelihood that Abu Ali would remain dangerous after a release was "a grave concern" that the judge had a right to consider at sentencing.

Uh, yeah.

The Oklahoma law was not specific enough in explaining that Sharia is not just a system of religious laws and doctrines, but a political and military system. And so Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange wrote this (plaintiff, remember, is the local rep of Hamas-linked CAIR):

Furthermore, plaintiff has presented testimony that "Sharia Law" is not actually "law", but is religious traditions that provide guidance to plaintiff and other Muslims regarding the exercise of their faith. Plaintiff has presented testimony that the obligations that "Sharia Law" imposes are not legal obligations but are obligations of a personal and private nature dictated by faith. Plaintiff also testified that "Sharia Law" differs depending on the country in which the individual Muslim resides. For example, plaintiff stated that marrying more than one wife is permissible in Islam but in the United States, where that is illegal, Muslims do not marry more than one wife because Sharia in the United States mandates Muslims to abide by the law of the land and respect the law of their land. Based upon this testimony, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown "Sharia Law" lacks a legal character, and, thus, plaintiff's religious traditions and faith are the only non-legal content subject to the judicial exclusion set forth in the amendment. As a result, the Court finds plaintiff has made a strong showing that the amendment conveys a message of disapproval of plaintiff's faith and, consequently, has the effect of inhibiting plaintiff's religion.

All perfectly reasonable, and perfectly false. Sharia contains the doctrines of jihad that mandate warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. It does not vary all that markedly from country to country, which is why states that implement it most fully, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, tend to resemble one another. If Muslims in the U.S. abide by the law of the land and do not practice polygamy (and even that is debatable, as even Honest Ibe Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR has admitted that some Muslims in the U.S. do indeed practice polygamy), that does not mean that should conditions change and they exercise sufficient political power here, that they wouldn't try to change the laws of the land to make them more Sharia-compliant.

I don't know who is advising the anti-Sharia people in Oklahoma about what Sharia is, but they have completely failed to show Miles-LaGrange that Sharia has an inherent political and supremacist character. Of course, it may be that she simply refuses to acknowledge that fact, despite the mountains of available evidence to establish it.

"Judge issues permanent injunction on Oklahoma Sharia law ban," by Bill Mears for CNN, November 29:

Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge in Oklahoma has issued an order putting on hold the certification of a ballot measure that forbids state courts from considering or using international laws, as well as Sharia, or Islamic law. That permanent injunction will allow the judge more time to consider the constitutional issues raised by State Question 755, which was approved by voters earlier this month.

Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange had earlier issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had sued to nullify the law completely.

"While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out," wrote the judge in Monday's order, "the court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual's constitutional rights."

The language of her 15-page order indicated Miles-LaGrange has initial doubts about the constitutionality of the ballot measure. She said the case goes "to the very foundation of our country, our Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country's history, the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals."

The amendment would require Oklahoma courts to "rely on federal and state law when deciding cases" and "forbids courts from considering or using" either international law or Islamic religious law, known as Sharia, which the amendment defined as being based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

In bringing suit, CAIR argued that the amendment violates both the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The group's local leader Muneer Awad has said the amendment passed under a campaign of fear and misinformation about Islam...

Misinformation? Nonsense. I would meet Muneer Awad anytime, anywhere, to discuss in an open forum the contents of Sharia. But I know he won't, because he knows what those contents are as much as I do.

The Oklahoma City-based Miles-LaGrange is a 1994 Clinton appointee.

Ah.

Good for this jury, which rejected the idea that the officers should have compromised their own safety, so as to allow these Somali suspects to go alone into another room to put on hijabs. They were arguing that cultural considerations should trump the value of a police officer's life.

"Jury rejects Somali family's civil-rights claims over failed drug bust," by Mike Carter for the Seattle Times, November 17 (thanks to Phil for the link and the observations above):

A federal jury in Seattle has rejected claims by a Somali family that their rights were violated when armed narcotics officers entered their home without announcing themselves during a 2006 federal crackdown on the illegal stimulant called "khat."

Ali Dualeh, his wife and their five children were taken into federal custody by members of the Valley Narcotics Task Force, under the supervision of the Drug Enforcement Administration, as part of a national crackdown called Operation Somali Express.

Dualeh was never convicted of a crime....

Dualeh had initially claimed that officers roughed him up and pointed firearms at his wife and young children -- the oldest was 8 at the time during the raid at their Kent home. His wife claimed that she was forced to remain in the presence of the officers without wearing a head scarf, in violation of her Muslim beliefs.

Most of those allegations were dismissed or thrown out by U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly before trial.

The sole issue to make it to the jury involved allegations that the officers violated the requirement that they "knock and announce" themselves before entering the home, in keeping with the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal searches and seizures.

But the officers claimed that the search team was compromised as they moved across an apartment parking lot when they were seen by someone in an upstairs window. As a result, they said concerns for officer safety and evidence protection justified their breaking into the apartment without first announcing themselves.

The jury deliberated 90 minutes before finding in favor of the officers Tuesday following a three-day trial.

Earlier this year, the federal government paid another Somali woman, Habibo Jama, $40,000 to settle her claim that officers ignored her pleas to allow her to cover herself during another "Operation Somali Express" raid at her home.

In hindsight, federal law-enforcement officials have acknowledged that the raids were ill-conceived and alienated the U.S. Somali community, which has been targeted for recruiting by Islamic militants.

The U.S. Somali community, meanwhile, doesn't seem concerned about having alienated law-enforcement officials.

We have seen again and again over the years that Islamic supremacists never take responsibility for anything they have done, but instead constantly point fingers at others and claim victim status. And so it is with Muzzammil Hassan, the founder of Bridges TV, a network designed to show the true, peaceful face of Islam, and was doing it quite well until Hassan beheaded his wife in its studios. Neither the Buffalo News nor any other mainstream media outlet will explore the abundant evidence that this was an Islamic honor killing -- an ugly result of the contempt for women, and approval of violence toward them (cf. Qur'an 4:34), that mars so much of Islam's teachings about women.

"Beheading suspect says jail deputies tortured him," by Matt Gryta in the Buffalo News, November 17 (thanks to Mark):

A court hearing Wednesday on whether a television reporter must turn over notes of an interview with accused killer Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan instead became a forum for Hassan to accuse his jailers of torturing and plotting to kill him.

Hassan asked a judge to "fire" Sheriff Timothy B. Howard because of the alleged actions of sheriff's deputies in the Erie County Holding Center, claims that a Sheriff's Office spokesman called "preposterous."

Hassan, 45, who is awaiting trial on charges he murdered his wife in Orchard Park last year, told Erie County Judge Thomas P. Franczyk he was attacked and beaten by 16 jail guards -- whom he referred to as "white Nazis" Ñ [sic] Nov. 10 and last Thursday. He also claimed he had been "waterboarded" in the jail.

Oh yes, prisoners are routinely waterboarded in American jails.

"I don't feel safe," Hassan told the judge....

Just imagine how safe his wife must have felt.

Erie County Undersheriff Mark N. Wipperman, who has overall command of all jail operations, said Hassan "has been a troublesome and problematic inmate" since his February 2009 jailing.

What a shock!

"Mr. Hassan's diatribe today in Judge Franczyk's court is preposterous, and the conduct he described in these absurd allegations will never be tolerated in the Erie County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Hassan has been treated fairly and humanely since the inception of his incarceration," Wipperman said.

Hassan, jailed since he turned himself in to Orchard Park police, is accused of beheading his estranged wife, Aasiya Zubair Hassan, 37, on Feb. 12, 2009, in the cable television station they founded. The homicide occurred a week after Aasiya Hassan began divorce proceedings.

Franczyk also reserved decision on a prosecution request for the notes and memos of a WGRZ-TV reporter who conducted a Sept. 8 jailhouse interview with Hassan. In that interview, Hassan reiterated earlier claims that he killed his wife in self-defense because he was a victim of "battered spouse syndrome."...

They claim they were tortured, and the British government is going to pay them off rather than reveal intelligence secrets. More courtroom jihad: "Government to compensate ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees," from the BBC, November 16 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Around a dozen men, who accused British security forces of colluding in their torture overseas, are to get millions in compensation from the UK government.

Some of the men, who are all British citizens or residents, were detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba.

At least six of them alleged UK forces were complicit in their torture before they arrived at Guantanamo.

A ministerial statement on the out-of-court settlement is due to be made in the House of Commons later on Tuesday.

It is believed the government wanted to avoid a lengthy and costly court case which would also have put the British secret intelligence services under the spotlight.

Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed and Martin Mubanga were among those who had begun High Court cases against the government.

They had claimed that UK intelligence agencies and three government departments were complicit in their torture and should have prevented it.

In May, the Court of Appeal ruled that the government was unable to rely on "secret evidence" to defend itself against the six cases....

In Human Events today I discuss a new lawfare case and freedom of speech assault by Islamic supremacists:

Islamic supremacists are at war with freedom of speech in the West: The 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference has been campaigning for years now at the United Nations to compel Western states to criminalize "religious hatred"--that is, honest discussions of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and to recruit peaceful Muslims to their cause. One little-noted weapon in this war is the courtroom: using libel and defamation laws as weapons to cow critics and intimidate them into silence. My courageous and indefatigable colleague Pamela Geller is the latest target.

Muslim foes of the freedom of speech have used this weapon frequently over the years. The Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has sued many, and has threatened legal action against many more. In 2006 CAIR dropped a $1.35 million libel suit against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR, who had called CAIR a "terrorist front organization," after Whitehead's lawyers asked probing questions about the group during the discovery process.

In another notable case, billionaire Saudi Khalid bin Mahfouz sued writer Rachel Ehrenfeld in libel-friendly Britain for writing in her book Funding Evil that he was involved in funding Hamas and al-Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given money to either. This case became the foundation for new laws protecting American writers from libel rulings in other countries.

Now Ohio lawyer Omar Tarazi has filed a $10-million defamation lawsuit against Geller for elements of her reporting on the case of Rifqa Bary, the teenage girl who kicked off a year-long custody battle when she fled from her home in fear for her life after her Muslim father discovered her conversion to Christianity. (The battle ended when Rifqa turned eighteen and was free to live on her own as a Christian.)

Tarazi was the lawyer for Rifqa Bary's parents. Tarazi objected to Geller's referring to him as their "CAIR-appointed lawyer," although his connections to CAIR had actually been reported by others earlier, and there was photographic evidence that CAIR was extensively involved in advising Rifqa Bary's parents. Geller's lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that her reporting about the case included "accurate reports of statements of others" and "true statements simply." But there are larger implications of the suit itself....

There is more.

Another lawsuit proceeds according to the principle that American businesses must change the way they operate in order to accommodate Muslims, rather than that Muslims must adapt to American society, laws, and mores. Not too long ago in America, a suit like this would have been laughed out of court, and Vasant Reddy would have been told to find a job that didn't involve his violating his religious principles. No more. Now it is up to the unlucky business where Vasant Reddy chooses to work to change the way it does business in order to suit him.

Stealth Jihad Update: "Civil-rights suit alleges Muslim was fired for refusing to haul beer, though company had agreed to accommodate his religion," by Stephanie Farr for the Philadelphia Daily News, October 22 (thanks to Benedict):

A Muslim man claims he was fired by a trucking company after refusing to transport a load of alcohol, according to a civil-rights lawsuit filed recently in federal court.

Vasant Reddy, 35, of Northeast Philadelphia, said it's against his religious beliefs to "consume, possess or transport alcohol or tobacco," according to the suit.

He claims he told this to his supervisors at the Philadelphia branch of Schneider National Inc. when he was hired in May 2009. They told him they could accommodate his beliefs, but the next month he was assigned to transport a delivery of Miller Lite, said Reddy's attorney, Justin Swidler.

When he complained, Reddy's supervisor told him that his refusal to transport the beer was an "operational violation" and that he would be fired, the suit said.

Reddy said he was assigned another nonalcoholic load that he transported successfully and that another driver moved the Miller Lite shipment, according to court documents.

Two days later, though, Reddy was given a choice: Resign or be fired, Swidler said.

"There is no dispute that he was fired for denying to transport alcohol," Swidler said. "They fired him because they felt like it was an insubordination for him to request such a thing."...

Swidler claims that fewer than 5 percent of Schneider's transports contain alcohol and, therefore, accommodating Reddy's religious beliefs wouldn't have been difficult for the company.

"The law is clear that if it creates an undue hardship, you don't have to accommodate someone," Swidler said. "Clearly, a bar doesn't have to hire someone who is Muslim, but it's different if it's only 1, 3 or 5 percent of your business."

How trumped-up are these accusations? Above is video of the people on the flotilla chanting a genocidal battle cry against the Jews -- "Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return" -- that recalls Muhammad's massacre of the Jews at the oasis of Khaibar. They were peaceful "activists"? Sell me a bridge.

"Turks accuse Israel of war crimes at int'l court," by Arthur Max for Associated Press, October 14 (thanks to JCB):

AMSTERDAM - Turkish lawyers representing pro-Palestinian activists filed a complaint Thursday with the International Criminal Court accusing Israel of committing war crimes in May when its troops raided a boat trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza....

A delegation representing some 300 activists and a Turkish nongovernment organization submitted the complaint to the prosecutor's office in The Hague seeking an investigation into the May 31 raid.

Nine Turkish citizens, including 19-year-old Furkan Dogan who had dual U.S.-Turkish nationality, were killed during the melee after Israeli troops rappelled from helicopters onto the deck of the ship Mavi Marmara before dawn.

"I have confidence the international court and the prosecutor will take this case," said Ahmet Dogan, Furkan's father.

Israel has said its troops fired live ammunition only after they were attacked by activists with clubs and metal bars and they felt their lives were in danger.

Attorney Ugur Sevgili said the victims want Israel investigated for torture, inhuman treatment, the taking of hostages and other violations of the Geneva war crimes convention.

"We demanded from the prosecutor to initiate an investigation and prosecute the perpetrators of this crime," Sevgili said. "We didn't mention any Israeli soldiers or any Israeli politicians. We just told them that we believe war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed."...

Tying up the time and resources of the Infidel. "Man appeals 'jihad book' conviction," from AAP, October 6:

Highly prejudicial material was "inadvertently" tendered at the trial of a man later convicted over a terrorism "do-it-yourself" jihad book, a court has been told.

Ian Barker, QC, representing former Qantas cabin cleaner Belal Saadallah Khazaal, said the tendered magazines referred to material suggesting a link between al-Qaeda and Khazaal.

He contended there had been a "miscarriage of justice" as a result of the trial judge's failure to discharge the jury when the Crown later referred to some of the material.

Khazaal, in September 2009, was jailed for at least nine years, after a NSW Supreme Court jury found him guilty of making a document - between September 20 and 23, 2003 - connected with assistance in a terrorist act, knowing of that connection.

But the jury was discharged after failing to agree on a verdict on a charge of attempting to incite others to engage in a terrorist act, between September 22 and October 28, 2003.

On Wednesday, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal reserved its decisions after hearing challenges to both Khazaal's conviction and sentence....

He's depraved on account-a he's deprived. In an apotheosis of Qur'an 4:34, the "wife-beating verse," Muzzammil Hassan beheaded his wife in the studio of the moderate Muslim television network he founded, Bridges TV. Now, in a classic Islamic supremacist displacement of responsibility onto the victim, he is claiming that his wife abused him, not the other way around. "'Battered spouse' defense allowed in beheading trial," by Sandra Tan and Matt Gryta for the Buffalo News, September 4 (thanks to Mark):

After waiting 1 1/2 years for cable executive Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan to face murder charges in the stabbing and beheading of his wife, prosecutors suffered a blow Friday when a judge ruled that the defense can introduce evidence of "battered spouse syndrome."

Prosecutors said the decision by Erie County Judge Thomas P. Franczyk forced them to seek a delay -- the third since the start of this year -- in the trial, now scheduled for Jan. 10, nearly two full years after Aasiya Zubair Hassan was killed.

Jury selection had been set to begin Wednesday.

"I don't want anyone to think for a moment that I am particularly happy with this," Franczyk said.

In response, District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said he was infuriated at being forced to seek another delay because of "psychiatric hide-and-seek" by the defense.

"This is what is so darn maddening," he said.

Julie Atti Rogers, one of Hassan's lawyers, said the defense did not desire to delay the trial.

"We never wanted a postponement," she said. "We never intended this case to get pushed out into the new year. That being said, we are happy ... to have his doctor testify regarding the evaluation that she did and the diagnosis that she made."

Rogers and co-defense counsel Jeremy D. Schwartz said Ana Natasha Cervantes, a Buffalo forensic psychiatrist, and Kenneth Corvo, a Syracuse psychologist, are ready to testify that Hassan suffered from "spousal abuse syndrome."

Hassan has been jailed since Feb. 12, 2009, when he turned himself in to Orchard Park police after the body of his wife was found in the studio of Bridges TV, the Muslim-oriented cable station the couple had co-founded five years earlier.

Sedita and lead prosecutor Colleen Curtin Gable said they had asked defense attorneys at least a dozen times whether they planned to introduce a psychiatric defense, only to be told "no," "maybe" and "yes," at different points.

Rogers responded that the defense's plans for psychiatric testimony were hampered by changes in counsel, lack of funds to obtain a psychiatrist until May and a last-minute refusal by an expert in July to serve as a witness, forcing Hassan's lawyers to scramble for another expert.

She also said her client is "pleased and happy" that his claims of spousal abuse will be heard at trial.

"He feels like he's finally going to have a fair opportunity in court," Rogers said. "It's his constitutional right to present a defense, and he's going to be given that right as a result of this decision."

Prosecutors pointed out that, in January, Franczyk had barred a battered spouse defense and reiterated that position only last week.

But Friday, Francyzk changed his mind, citing the prosecution's recently stated intent to introduce prior, uncharged evidence of Hassan's abuse of his wife as proof of motive in the killing.

A week before her death, Aasiya Zubair Hassan had filed a divorce affidavit, obtained by The Buffalo News, chronicling a history of physical and psychological abuse, with accompanying photos of physical bruising.

She also had filed numerous police complaints over the years but never followed through in pressing charges.

Sedita said the prosecution's intent to introduce indications of domestic violence by Hassan should come as a surprise to no one.

"Of course we want to bring in evidence of motive," Sedita said Friday afternoon. "That's pretty important part of every case."

Citing delays by Hassan's lawyers in revealing their strategy -- despite criminal law mandating early disclosure -- Gable told the judge, "This is the very situation that we predicted would happen" months ago.

Sedita later added, "If we do not ask for an adjournment, the defense is rewarded for their hide-and-seek tactics, and the prosecution is forced to go to trial with their hands tied behind their back." [...]

Though Hassan had to be dragged into and out of court last week, when he repeatedly referred to Franczyk as a "voodoo" judge, he remained calm Friday.

Earlier Friday, the judge heard contradictory accounts of problems in Hassan's marriage.

The prosecution said Hassan had caused a miscarriage four years ago by dragging and sitting on his pregnant wife, while the defense said she had threatened to kill Hassan in his sleep.

Atti Rogers told the judge the defense team will prove, through e-mails and other material, that Hassan's wife threatened him with a knife hours before she was beheaded and previously had threatened to move back to their native Pakistan with their two young children.

Hassan has two older children by a previous marriage.

The defense also said the victim verbally antagonized Hassan through their nine-year marriage and subjected him to "debilitating abuse" that caused Hassan to have low self-esteem, be medically depressed and in need of professional threatment.

Atti Rogers also said in court that Aasiya Zubair Hassan had kicked, slapped and struck her husband almost every day. At the time of the beheading, she said, Hassan feared he never would see his children again. His wife also had threatened to burn down their house and crash his car, the defense claimed.

Well, then! Off with her head!

She has been working with the company for two years and only now has filed suit. Hamas-linked CAIR is representing her. This is, in short, yet another stealth jihad attempt to assert the primacy of Islamic law and custom over American law and custom. "Muslim employee accuses Disney of discrimination," from the Orange County Register, August 18 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

A Disneyland Resort hotel employee accused Disney of discrimination for refusing to let her wear a Muslim head scarf at work in public.

Imane Boudlal, a restaurant hostess at the Storytellers' Cafe in the Grand Californian Hotel in Downtown Disney, said she has been sent home without pay four times this week after attempting to wear a hijab at work.

But Suzi Brown, a Disneyland Resort spokeswoman, said Boudlal was offered a behind-the-scenes assignment at the restaurant until a solution could be figured out. Brown denied that the company discriminated against Boudlal.

Wednesday afternoon, Boudlal was turned away for the fourth time from her public hostess job after holding a press conference to bring attention to the issue. About 50 supporters -- some of whom wore head scarves -- followed her to the front of the restaurant, praying and rallying as they waited for an answer and Disney visitors walked by. Boudlal again was told that she could take an assignment out of public view.

"I'm not going to accept to work in the back," said Boudlal, 26, of Anaheim.

In the press conference, Boudlal said she believes she was discriminated against because she looks Muslim. Boudlal said she sent a letter to Disney requesting that she be able to wear a head scarf. After they kept delaying a response, she decided to report to work with it.

"I'm not here to scare anyone," she said. "I'm here to do my job."

Yeah, sure.

On Wednesday, Boudlal filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a letter demanding back pay from Disney, said Ameena Qazi, an attorney from Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is representing Boudlal. Qazi said she believes that Disney is breaking state and federal laws.

"The company values diversity and has a long-standing policy against discrimination of any kind," said Brown of Disney in the prepared statement.

"Ms. Boudlal has worked for the company for more than two years and recently made the request to wear a hijab, and we have been working directly with her on accommodations. In the interim, we offered reasonable accommodations to allow her to work during her scheduled shifts, which she declined."...

Disney is known for its strict dress code, called the Disney Look, which has been in place since 1957.

It won't be in place much longer.

The ACLU has to go out of its way to represent him, because he has been designated a terrorist. Courtroom Jihad Update: "Father Of Internet Imam Plans To Sue CIA," by Dina Temple-Raston for NPR, August 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The father of the Internet's most famous radical cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, is planning to sue the U.S. government for including his son on a CIA target list.

Nasser al-Awlaki hired the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights last month to file a lawsuit that would question whether his American-born son can be on the CIA's "capture or kill" list. A lawsuit ultimately could seek an injunction to get him removed from the list. That lawsuit hasn't been filed. But it would mark the first legal challenge to the military and CIA target lists.

"This represents a new kind of challenge to American counter-terrorism," said Sam Rascoff, a New York University law professor. "Previous lawsuits have focused mainly on the government's power to detain, interrogate and gather intelligence on individuals as part of the so-called 'war on terror.' Now, for the first time, the government's authority to kill one of its own citizens is in question."

Anwar al-Awlaki is thought to be a senior operative for al-Qaida's arm in Yemen, and he has been linked to both the Fort Hood shootings last November and an attempted bombing on a U.S. airliner on Christmas day.

NPR reported last week that Awlaki's father had been in contact with lawyers in the United States to file the lawsuit.

Restrictions On Representing Awlaki

The American Civil Liberties Union and the CCR say the details of that lawsuit have yet to be worked out, partly because the lawyers have been hamstrung by a federal regulation that limits their ability to defend Awlaki.

Under U.S. Treasury Department rules, the ACLU and CCR have to apply for a license to represent him because he has been designated a terrorist. The human rights lawyers asked a federal district court judge Tuesday to strike down that regulation.

"The same government that is seeking to kill Anwar al-Awlaki has prohibited attorneys from contesting the legality of the government's decision to use lethal force against him," says the complaint filed Tuesday morning.

Later Tuesday, the ACLU and CCR issued a statement addressing the status of the standoff with the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control:

"OFAC has neither issued a license nor stated that we don't need one. It suggests that it might eventually grant us a license for our work, but our application has already gone unanswered for eleven days. OFAC is well aware that the case relates to the government's decision to add a U.S. citizen to its 'targeted killing' list. To say that the matter is urgent is a dramatic understatement. Instead of issuing press releases, OFAC should simply issue us a license."

The Obama administration placed Awlaki on a target list earlier this year. The decision came after a young Nigerian tried unsuccessfully to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25. He told U.S. authorities that Awlaki had directed him to launch the attack. Awlaki is also thought to have inspired Maj. Nidal Hasan, the army psychiatrist who allegedly opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas last year.

Deemed A National Security Threat

The Treasury Department's decision to put Awlaki on its terrorism list was more recent. It came just weeks ago -- about the same time that Awlaki's father was exploring whether to file a lawsuit against the U.S. government.

Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, called Awlaki a national security threat.

"Anwar al-Awlaki has proven that he is extraordinarily dangerous, committed to carrying out deadly attacks on Americans and others worldwide," Levey said last month. "He has involved himself in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism -- fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents."

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero acknowledged that Awlaki is a controversial client to represent. "But the issue isn't about Awlaki's character or crimes," he said. "The issue is due process under the law. Mary Poppins isn't on a terrorism list."...

After wasting over £100,000 and 900 hours of police time: the Jihad of Draining and Diverting Resources. An update on this story: "Muslim leader who claimed he was kidnapped by BNP members jailed over 'pack of lies,'" from the Daily Mail, June 11 (thanks to Tziona):

A Muslim community leader who claimed he was kidnapped by BNP members at knifepoint has today been jailed for perverting the course of justice.

Noor Ramjanally, 36, told police he was bungled [sic] into the back of a car by two racist men outside his flat after he started holding prayer sessions.

However, Ramjanally's 'pack of lies' were exposed when he was caught out by secret CCTV cameras installed to protect him after previous claims that he was being targeted.

Footage showed that at the time of the alleged attack, the father-of-one was getting into a taxi outside his home. He was also caught on camera later at a local Homebase.

The cameras had been installed after Ramjanally claimed his home, in Loughton, Essex - where he lived with his wife and son - was firebombed and that he was sent hate mail.

More than £100,000 was spent on the investigation into his allegations which wasted more than 900 hours of police time.

He was given a two-year sentence in his absence after failing to attend Chelmsford Crown Court in Essex today.

It is believed Ramjanally has returned to his native Mauritius.

Judge Karen Walden Smith said it was impossible to say whether Ramjanally acted as he did deliberately to increase tension in the community or did it for his own vanity, or both.

She continued: 'This allegation was a complete pack of lies.

'These were serious allegations being made to point the finger at a political party with unsavoury views in order to accuse them of an extremely serious offence.

'The fact was to divert precious police resources and increase tension.' ...

More precisely, he says he was fired because he filed a complaint with the EEOC, claiming he was being harassed for being a Muslim. In any case, lots of people have unpleasant work environments, and have to work with people who are rude or unkind or cruel to them. So what? It's a part of life -- unless you're a Muslim who can seize the opportunity to claim protected victim status and cash in in the courtroom. "Lawsuit claiming firing was retaliation is headed for trial," by Peter Krouse for The Plain Dealer, April 17 (thanks to Twostellas):

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Rami Awad's more than three years as a branch employee of National City Bank ended badly -- and a jury is about to hear what happened.

In 2007, Awad was fired on the grounds that he improperly opened several accounts and processed a loan without the customer's authorization. But that's not the real reason he was let go, he claims. Awad, an Arabic Muslim of Palestinian descent, sued the bank and a former supervisor and the case is set for trial April 26 in federal court.

Awad, 32, contends he was fired in retaliation for a claim filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in February 2007. He also claims he was subject to a hostile work environment.

U.S. District Judge James Gwin recently dismissed several other claims by Awad of discrimination related to promotions, pay, punishment and termination, but allowed Awad's claims of retaliatory firing and a hostile work environment to proceed.

A spokesman for PNC Financial Services Inc., which bought National City in late 2008, declined to comment. The bank and co-defendant Nancy Malta have filed court documents denying Awad's allegations.

In his complaint, Awad claims that he was harassed by his fellow employees because of his religion and nationality.

In one instance, while working as a part-time teller at a branch in Boardman, the manager said to Awad in front of others, "You are probably one of the terrorists on the watch list," according to the complaint.

At the bank's McKinley branch, when Awad spoke on the phone in Arabic, a bank officer would make discriminatory comments such as "Rami is about to bomb something," the complaint states.

Awad later worked at a branch in Wexford, Pa., where his duties also included opening accounts. He claims the branch manager, Malta, told him drinking alcohol with colleagues is part of the job, and that if someone doesn't drink he should not be in banking.

Awad claims Malta knew he did not consume alcohol because of his Muslim faith.

The EEOC claim alleged that Awad was passed over for promotion because of his national origin. Awad claims that prior to his EEOC hearing, Malta threatened to have him fired....

Andrew McCarthy is right: this program will "make agents reconsider investigating in the first place. What this is going to dry up is the normal give and take between a community and law enforcement. It should raise people's eyebrows." Indeed. The FBI should not be on the defensive here. The Muslim community should instead be anxious to prove its loyalty and rejection of jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism.

When will the ACLU open up its Infidel Rights Project, to protect us from legal intimidation attempts like this one?

"ACLU program will protect Muslims in FBI questioning," by Tim Townsend for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 1:

Adil Imdad, 41, moved to the United States as a teenager from his native Pakistan in 1981. Five years later, he became an American citizen, and in 1995, he moved to St. Louis to pursue a master's degree in environmental engineering at Washington University.

Imdad loves his adopted country. He also loves Islam, and his story embodies the reason the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri is launching the Muslim Rights Project. The program, which ACLU officials say may be its first nationwide, will provide volunteer attorneys for Muslims questioned by law enforcement officers.

Imdad is a devout Muslim. He wears a long beard, in honor of Islam's prophets. His forehead is occasionally bruised from bowing to the floor in frequent prayer. He travels to Pakistan to see his family there, and to Saudi Arabia for the Muslim pilgrimage known as hajj. He's a leader at the Bilal mosque on St. Louis University's campus.

In 2002, Imdad says, agents from the FBI interviewed him for the first time at his job at TSi Engineering in St. Louis. Since then, he has submitted to more than 20 FBI interviews, he said, some by phone and some in person. He keeps the business cards of each agent he has met in a laminated page in a three-ring binder. Each of their phone numbers is saved in his BlackBerry.

When Imdad was first approached by agents eight years ago, his motivation in talking to them was simple cooperation.

"I know the FBI is not my enemy," Imdad said. "I have two daughters who I want to keep safe. The FBI is trying to do that, so I wanted to help. I wanted to help my country."

But, Imdad said, over time, FBI agents became more aggressive in their questioning.

"You get a knock on your door at home, or they show up where you work, and you're scared," he said. "When you talk to them, they take advantage of that fear that's already in you."

Imdad said that during various interviews with FBI agents, he was locked in a room, repeatedly yelled at, asked what he was hiding and accused of lying....

"Talking to people in the Muslim community, you get the sense that this is a group under siege," said Brenda Jones, executive director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.

Critics of the FBI say its approach with Muslims in the United States has been manipulative. They say agents take advantage of immigrants who don't know they are not obliged to speak with the FBI, or that they should have a lawyer present if they do agree to an interview....

Marker acknowledged the FBI's outreach to the community has not been perfect.

"There's a climate of distrust at times," he said. "We have to do extra outreach to breach the climate of distrust and improve our relations with the Muslim community."

On a recent Friday afternoon at Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq mosque in south St. Louis, about 50 men, mostly of Afghan origin, gathered for prayer. They sat on the carpeted floor, shoeless, listening to the khutba, or sermon. After the men prayed, about half stayed to hear two ACLU members discuss the Muslim Rights Project.

The project, an extension of the ACLU's 5-year-old Muslim Rights Task Force, will provide volunteer attorneys for Muslims questioned by law enforcement officers. Other organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, have founded similar programs.

Through an interpreter speaking Farsi, Jim Hacking, a St. Louis attorney and convert to Islam, told the men that the ACLU "is concerned that Muslims -- both citizens and noncitizens -- have had their rights violated by law enforcement officials."

"We, as Muslims, have an obligation to report any wrongdoing we're aware of," Hacking continued. "But what we're concerned about is when people like you go into an interview with the FBI or police without knowing your rights."

Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow at the National Review Institute and former federal terrorism prosecutor, said the ACLU's program is "perfectly legal, but it's obviously not helpful."

"It'll make agents reconsider investigating in the first place," McCarthy said. "What this is going to dry up is the normal give and take between a community and law enforcement. It should raise people's eyebrows."...

All but two members of the ACLU's Muslim Rights Task Force are Muslim. They are professors, imams, doctors, attorneys and engineers. A recent event raised $20,000 toward hiring a part-time ACLU staffer to work solely on the Muslim Rights Project. Jones said the organization will also expedite calls to its office coming from Muslims in the area as part of the project.

In Imdad's case, he began to believe the government was harassing him after he was put on a terrorism watch list in 2004 for spending too long in an airplane bathroom while it sat on a runway in Buffalo, N.Y. Imdad, one of 23 members of the ACLU's Muslim Rights Task Force, said he tried to be helpful, but doing so only seemed to make his situation worse.

In 2006, an FBI agent again visited him at his workplace, now Kwame Building Group, Imdad said. The agent wanted to know about a donation Imdad had made to the Islamic African Relief Agency, about a new imam -- Mufti Minhajuddin Ahmed -- at Daar-ul-Islam mosque in Ballwin and about Imdad's position at the mosque. The agent, Imdad said, wanted him to take a lie detector test.

After the agent left, Imdad spent $500 on an attorney who wrote a letter telling the FBI it had violated Imdad's civil rights, and ordering the agency to leave him alone.

"That's when things got better," Imdad said.

For whom?