Writer, Harvard professor and attorney Alan
Dershowits asks the question: just how do you defeat
jihadis to whom killing infidels is more precious than life itself?
"Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women's magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber.
At the recent funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnaya(sic) --the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 -- Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: "if you're not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don't want you."
{...}
Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women -- some married with infant children -- are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders:
"We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: "[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah." Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."
"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion."
Professor
Dershowitz wonders how the Western democracies can defend themselves against this fanaticism, and without mentioning any ideas on the subject, says we need "new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities. We cannot simply wait until the son of
Zahra Maladan -- and the sons and daughters of hundreds of others like her -- decide to follow his mother's demand. We must stop them before they export their sick and dangerous culture of death to our shores."
Actually, I would disagree with Professor
Dershowitz on two counts.In the first place,
salafist and
wahabi Islam has
already exported itself to our shores, and since Professor
Dershowitz is far too intelligent to think otherwise,I can only assume that he is attempting to redeem his piece with a little taste of the MSG of political correctness. Being a Harvard professor, I can't imagine that he isn't aware of how thoroughly the Saudis have penetrated academia,particularly in the area of Middle East Studies.
The Saudis,through their front group the Islamic Society of North America now own and control the vast majority of mosques and
madrassahs here in America,where they preach and indoctrinate young Muslims in militant
wahabi Islam. And they have done it with the connivance of American politicians, including the current occupant of the White House.
President Bush, the man who once famously said `you're either with the terrorists or with us'
actually appeared at such a mosque, one that was cited by Freedom House as a particularly egregious example of how jihad is preached against the infidel in our own back yard.
The enemy is already within the gates.
The second point in which I disagree with Professor
Dershowitz is on the need for new rules in dealing with this menace.The old ones work quite well, although an intelligent and otherwise reasonable liberal like Professor
Dershowitz shies away from them.
The US has dealt in the past with fanatical enemies as well as potential fifth columnists on its soil with great success. The way we did it was
not by using half measures.
When World War II began, President Roosevelt took stern measures to secure the nation at home.For starters, he arrested and/or deported anyone with ties to our enemies who might have even remotely resembled a security risk. He gave the FBI
carte blanche to wiretap,listen to phone calls and intercept suspect mail and transatlantic cables at will to protect the country. I myself once had had tea with an elderly woman who proudly showed me a medal she received after she steamed the stamp off of a letter and found a microfilm dot underneath that destroyed a dangerous espionage ring and sent six Nazi spies to the gallows.
And perhaps most importantly, unlike the present administration, he engaged his fellow Americans in the task of security with a widespread publicity campaign warning against `loose lips that sink ships.' Using posters,speeches, the radio and the newspapers, the Roosevelt administration let the American people know that there was a significant security threat that could endanger the war effort and their freedom,and that their vigilance and help was needed.
On the battlefield itself, particularly in the Pacific,our military dealt with suicidal enemies not only by destroying them en
masse but by taking the war to the Japanese home islands with a vengeance.There's no question in my mind that if the Japanese had not surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US would likely have destroyed a substantial portion of the Japanese nation. As it was, that defeat of an honor/shame culture similar to the one we face today swept away the poisonous militaristic fascism in Japan and paved the way for a new beginning,just as it did in Germany.
As for legislating dangerous ideologies, our courts have been down this road before when faced with the communist conspiracy here in America in the 1940's and 1950's. Those laws exist and are quite plain and provide a firm and above all constitutional foundation when it comes dealing with most to the problems we have in the US with some practitioners of Islam and the people overseas who export jihad into America. And a few perfectly constitutional tweaks would cover the rest.
Lessee what we got,
hmmmm? Here a good one, right from the US code of justice, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 115, § 2385:
§ 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
Those Muslims who advocates sharia law, the Islamization of America, or jihad against Americans who happen to be Jews or Christians obviously fit this definition. Likewise, anyone who gives material support to such causes does too. And let's not be coy about it - any Muslim advocating sharia law in America is advocating the overthrow of the first and fourteenth amendments as well as the statutes mandating equal protection, since sharia mandates inferior status for women and non-Muslims, and as such is in clear violation of our laws.
This also applies to the sort of texts the Saudis are pushing in the madrassahs they control financially and to those fiery Friday sermons preaching death to the Jews.
And by the way, that is NOT constitutionally protected speech.....and the Supreme court has always agreed, utilizing the test of a `clear and present danger'.
The Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense for anyone to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State, for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association. The Smith Act was upheld in Dennis v. United States, where the Supreme court upheld the convictions of eleven Communist Party leaders on charges of conspiracy to violate the advocacy and organizing sections of the statute.
Chief Justice Vinson’s plurality opinion for the Court applied a revised `clear and present danger test' and concluded that the evil sought to be prevented was serious enough to justify suppression of speech.
"If, then, this interest may be protected, the literal problem which is presented is what has been meant by the use of the phrase ‘clear and present danger’ of the utterances bringing about the evil within the power of Congress to punish.
Obviously, the words cannot mean that before the Government may act, it must wait until the putsch is about to be executed, the plans have been laid and the signal is awaited. If Government is aware that a group aiming at its overthrow is attempting to indoctrinate its members and to commit them to a course whereby they will strike when the leaders feel the circumstances permit, action by the Government is required."
"The mere fact that from the period 1945 to 1948 petitioners’ activities did not result in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence is of course no answer to the fact that there was a group that was ready to make the attempt. The formation by petitioners of such a highly organized conspiracy, with rigidly disciplined members subject to call when the leaders, these petitioners, felt that the time had come for action, coupled with the inflammable nature of world conditions, similar uprisings in other countries, and the touch–and–go nature of our relations with countries with whom petitioners were in the very least ideologically attuned, convince us that their convictions were justified on this score."
Justice Felix Frankfurter concurred, concluding that "there is ample justification for a legislative judgment that the conspiracy now before us is a substantial threat to national order and security."
Another law still on the books that applies is the Internal Security Act of 1950, which provided for a comprehensive regulatory scheme by which “Communist–action organizations” and “Communist–front organizations” could be forestalled. Any organizations found to fall within one or the other of these designations were required to register and to provide membership lists for inspection by law enforcement, and an accounting of all money received. Members of those organizations which failed to register were legally mandated to to register and some members were subject to comprehensive restrictions and even arrest.
After a lengthy series of challenges, the issue got to the Supreme Court, which sustained the constitutionality of the Act under the First Amendment. Justice Frankfurter in the majority opinion concluded that the threat to national security posed by the Communist conspiracy outweighed considerations of individual liberty, the impact of the registration provision in this area in any event being limited to whatever "public opprobrium and obloquy” might attach". Three Justices based their conclusion on the premise that the Communist Party was
"an anti–democratic, secret organization, subservient to a foreign power, utilizing speech–plus in attempting to achieve its ends and therefore subject to extensive governmental regulation."
`An anti-democratic secret organization subservient to a foreign power' - sounds just like
CAIR or
ISNA doesn't it?
This was again upheld in
Scales v. United States.
I think that about covers it, as
Tom Metzger and the White Aryan Resistance later found out. And it applies to religions as well. Recent convictions in cases concerning certain rites prevalent in religions like Santeria that involve what US law considers felony animal torture have been upheld, and the Muslim custom of polygamy is likewise against US law - at least so far. That precedent goes back to the admission of Utah as part of the United States, as your Mormon friends will tell you.
Whenever religion has conflicted directly with US law, especially when issues like full faith and credit, the Bill of Rights or keeping the peace are involved, religion has always been forced by the courts to modify its practices.
There is no reason these precedents can't be applied to radical Islam...because they do not attack the practice of Islam per
se, but the advocating of the overthrow of the US government and the Constitution, and violent threats against the peace much more egregious than the sort of thing Tom
Metzger went to jail over. Frankly,if there are Muslims in America who have a problem with that, there are a number of countries for them to choose from where sharia law, the
dehumanization of unbelievers, glorification of violent jihad, Jew hatred and the
subjugation of women are considered proper and legal and where they would doubtless feel more at home.
Somehow I don't consider it a loss, particularly when so many terrorist attacks have a local component, radicalized at the nearest Saudi funded mosque.
In times of national emergencies, our Republic has always taken a deep breath, realized that the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact and temporarily abrogated or amended certain civil liberties until the threat was dealt with..after which those liberties were always returned to the people in full.
That's what's going to be necessary to defeat the Death Cult at home and abroad - not 'new strategies' but a return to first principles.
With maybe one exception..a law prohibiting anyone who's been in the employ of the American people as part of our government from receiving money or employment from a foreign government until they've been out of office for a minimum of fifteen years.
Ending the Saudi Government Pension Augmentation Plan for ex-elected officials, diplomats and other government functionaries would be one new strategy that would do a world of good.
The Council has spoken! A complete list of results can be found at the site of our fearless leader, the infamous Watcher of Weasels
