Courtroom Jihad and the Defense of “I am a Muslim”
by Jeffrey Breinholt
When you look into Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman’s eyes, you see nothing. It’s not because of the darkness in his soul, though some may claim that’s the case. Rather, it’s because he’s blind. This physical infirmity led American lawyers to claim that he was incapable of conspiring to wage war on the United States, by orchestrating an audacious plot to simultaneously destroy several New York City landmarks in the 1990s. His lawyers chose to ignore conspiracy law, which permits prosecutors to reach anyone who is party to the illegal agreement. Sheik Rahman was right in the middle of it. If he and his cohorts had succeeded, it is likely that the death count would have exceeded 9/11. They were caught before the killing started, through the help of an undercover informant. Rahman and nine other defendants were convicted.
His defense was not limited to his physical disability. It reached into a bag of tricks Americans sometimes fall for - involving religious freedom During his trial and in his appeal, Sheik Rahman argued that the seditious conspiracy statute violated the First Amendment, in that it unconstitutionally infringed on his free speech and the free exercise of religion. Fortunately, the judge in the case, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, knew better.
Judge Mukasey realized that the evidence justifying Abdel Rahman's conviction for conspiracy and solicitation showed that he was doing more than just preaching, and his speeches were not simply the expression of ideas. For example Abdel Rahman told one of his adherents he "should make up with God ... by turning his rifle's barrel to Egyptian President Mubarak's chest, and kill[ing] him." On another occasion, speaking to an adherent about murdering President Mubarak during his visit to the United States, Abdel Rahman told him, "Depend on God. Carry out this operation. It does not require a fatwa ... You are ready in training, but do it. Go ahead." One of his co-conspirators consulted with Abdel Rahman about the bombing of the United Nations Headquarters, and Abdel Rahman told him, "Yes, it's a must, it's a duty." When Abdel Rahman was asked by another co-conspirator about bombing the United Nations, he counseled against it on the ground that it would be "bad for Muslims," but added that Salem should "find a plan to destroy or to bomb or to ... inflict damage to the American Army."
In the end, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Rahman's claim that his conviction violated his rights under the First Amendment, affirming Judge Mukasey‘s decisions. U.S. v. Rahman,189 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1999)
This was not the first time a Muslim criminal defendant in a American court tried to defend himself through the "I am a Muslim" defense, nor would it be the last. This practice has been going on in various forms non-stop for almost 50 years. The case of the Blind Sheik was merely to most celebrated (and obvious) example.
When it is not so obvious is when it is a problem. Today, we are involved in a battle that requires us to obtain an accurate picture of our enemies, who are the small minority of Islamic fundamentalists who want to destroy us. Muslims who claim that their religion permits them to escape criminal liability are not the main problem, nor are the Islamic leaders who overtly tell us that they will kill our nationals unless they submit to Allah. The real challenge involves detecting Muslims who wear suits, speak English, and smile as they secretly plan to conquer Western civilization and impose Islamic law on the unwilling. I believe that we can spot the product of their efforts in the same way as we can treat Sheik Rahman as an historical threat whose motives were elucidated through the legal system - by reading the case books - though it requires far more subtle analysis.
...
Pertinent Links:
1) Courtroom Jihad and the Defense of “I am a Muslim”
Showing posts with label Jeffrey Breinholt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeffrey Breinholt. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
MUST READ: ISLAM IN AMERICAN COURTS: 2007 YEAR IN REVIEW
Islam in American Courts: 2007 Year in Review
by Jeffrey Breinholt
History is important. It gives us perspective into modern problems. We can gain immediate comfort seeing how so many " new" issues have been considered by courts in the past. As I have written, American court opinions explain that the threat of Islamic actions against out nationals is the very reason we have diplomatic assets overseas, and how al Qa’ida targeted the United States in part because of the economic sanctions we promoted against Iraq well before our 2003 military invasion. They also show that FBI wiretaps are hardly a new controversy, nor is the phenomenon of Muslims exploiting charities in hopes of achieving worldwide domination.
Legal history is particularly relevant to national security and counterrorism, and not merely because we are a country governed by the rule of law. Judicial opinions are interesting because of the facts they generate. Court cases are an undervalued source of strategic intelligence about the threats we face from radical Islam within the U.S. People is this category generally do not advertise that fact, and being parties in litigation forces them to disclose more about themselves than they otherwise would. Court opinions give us a vantage on the goals and methods of people who are not always willing to be transparent.
The history of Islam in the U.S. courts is not a long one, which is a good thing. It means this aspect of legal history is easily digestible. Most of it comes from the last 25 years. We now have another year under our belts. Which cases from 2007 will future historians and strategists use to glean trends relevant to American national security?
...
Conclusion: Want to Bet?
There are some very real lessons from this past year’s cases involving .Islam Of course, there would not be as many prison cases if we did have so many Muslims convicted of crimes and incarcerated. We would see fewer Muslim asylum cases if Christians and ethnic Chinese were not threatened with persecution in Indonesia, or if Muslim countries were not so broken and inhospitable that their own nationals would rather throw themselves at the mercy of our courts to avoid being sent home. How about the Muslims we have here? Far too many are demonstrably involved in terrorism and more petty crimes. Many law-abiding Muslims claim discrimination in the workplace, without any real hope that these claims will succeed successful, and many resort to frequently-frivolous litigation designed to control how people express themselves and to frustrate government security efforts.
Is this going to change? Does the New Year portend a shift in these trends? Don’t count on it. I predict that this time next year, I will armed with new stories and writing another article describing how 2008 set an all-time high for cases in some of the categories described above. I hope I am wrong, but I somehow doubt it. Is anyone interested in a friendly wager on this proposition?
It need not be this way. Despite the insight these cases offer to national security professionals struggling with the mystery that is the American-Muslim community, we may someday reach a point when Islam is no longer relevant to many judicial proceedings. When that happens – and the "Islam cases" in American courts slow to a trickle – people like me will be deprived of an object of research, but you will not hear us complain. It will mean we have succeeded in establishing a society where another ethnic community is fully integrated into the American dream and realizes that we are all in this together, and that additional inconveniences must be tolerated as long as we face a threat from political Islam. At that point, we might focus our days on the next big problem, maybe Russian mobsters who have achieved a foothold here. Until that happens, we should continue to mine these Islam cases for strategic intelligence and insight into today’s challenges.
Pertinent Links:
1) Islam in American Courts: 2007 Year in Review
by Jeffrey Breinholt
History is important. It gives us perspective into modern problems. We can gain immediate comfort seeing how so many " new" issues have been considered by courts in the past. As I have written, American court opinions explain that the threat of Islamic actions against out nationals is the very reason we have diplomatic assets overseas, and how al Qa’ida targeted the United States in part because of the economic sanctions we promoted against Iraq well before our 2003 military invasion. They also show that FBI wiretaps are hardly a new controversy, nor is the phenomenon of Muslims exploiting charities in hopes of achieving worldwide domination.
Legal history is particularly relevant to national security and counterrorism, and not merely because we are a country governed by the rule of law. Judicial opinions are interesting because of the facts they generate. Court cases are an undervalued source of strategic intelligence about the threats we face from radical Islam within the U.S. People is this category generally do not advertise that fact, and being parties in litigation forces them to disclose more about themselves than they otherwise would. Court opinions give us a vantage on the goals and methods of people who are not always willing to be transparent.
The history of Islam in the U.S. courts is not a long one, which is a good thing. It means this aspect of legal history is easily digestible. Most of it comes from the last 25 years. We now have another year under our belts. Which cases from 2007 will future historians and strategists use to glean trends relevant to American national security?
...
Conclusion: Want to Bet?
There are some very real lessons from this past year’s cases involving .Islam Of course, there would not be as many prison cases if we did have so many Muslims convicted of crimes and incarcerated. We would see fewer Muslim asylum cases if Christians and ethnic Chinese were not threatened with persecution in Indonesia, or if Muslim countries were not so broken and inhospitable that their own nationals would rather throw themselves at the mercy of our courts to avoid being sent home. How about the Muslims we have here? Far too many are demonstrably involved in terrorism and more petty crimes. Many law-abiding Muslims claim discrimination in the workplace, without any real hope that these claims will succeed successful, and many resort to frequently-frivolous litigation designed to control how people express themselves and to frustrate government security efforts.
Is this going to change? Does the New Year portend a shift in these trends? Don’t count on it. I predict that this time next year, I will armed with new stories and writing another article describing how 2008 set an all-time high for cases in some of the categories described above. I hope I am wrong, but I somehow doubt it. Is anyone interested in a friendly wager on this proposition?
It need not be this way. Despite the insight these cases offer to national security professionals struggling with the mystery that is the American-Muslim community, we may someday reach a point when Islam is no longer relevant to many judicial proceedings. When that happens – and the "Islam cases" in American courts slow to a trickle – people like me will be deprived of an object of research, but you will not hear us complain. It will mean we have succeeded in establishing a society where another ethnic community is fully integrated into the American dream and realizes that we are all in this together, and that additional inconveniences must be tolerated as long as we face a threat from political Islam. At that point, we might focus our days on the next big problem, maybe Russian mobsters who have achieved a foothold here. Until that happens, we should continue to mine these Islam cases for strategic intelligence and insight into today’s challenges.
Pertinent Links:
1) Islam in American Courts: 2007 Year in Review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
