ABOUT DAMN TIME

As you've no doubt heard, the Brits finally get abu Hamza off the streets. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy. Hamza has been a problem, a thorn, an embarrassment, and a challenge, for the Brits since before 9/11. And his case points to two specific issues that the Brits in particular -- but all the European countries to some degree -- have confronted regarding these imams who preach really vile hatred.

The first challenge is to determine at what point these preachings cross the line and are no longer protected speech. The Europeans, of course, don't have a First Amendment, and are far more devoted to multi-culti, PC hate speech laws. Preach hatred against most racial or ethnic groups (sorry, we as Americans don't count) and you can actually get hauled into court. However despite their commitment to this they do have traditions of free speech, and the imams present more complicated cases because they spew their garbage under the guise of preaching, so that in many cases if a guy off the street dressed as a skinhead had recited a speech focused on, say, blacks or Asians, he might be liable under hate laws, an imam reciting the same speech, changing the words to Jews and Christians would be left alone.

Think about this under our own laws. I haven't studied First Amendment law for some time, but the threshold for speech to be illegal as incitement to violence is very, very high. You virtually have to say, hey -- lets all go down over there and crack those guys heads! So if someone who's preaching in a religous sermon were to say, it's a religious duty at some point in your life to wage jihad against the imposter Muslim governments -- does that cross the threshold? What if there were evidence, as there clearly is with Hamza, that folks he'd preached to had taken him at his word, that it wasn't it just theoretical or academic as they interpreted it?

The second challenge is what to do about the fact that there are alot of people who sought refuge in Western Europe and especially London because they knew about the European policy of not extradicting if there was a death sentence waiting at the other end of the extradition. We'll end up promising not to go for a death sentence with Hamza, which seems pretty reasonable in his case, but there have been other situations where the Brits just would not send people back. And there may be other cases where we just do not want to give up our sentencing flexibility to satisfy a European sensibility. Should their commitment to this issue be what sticks the Brits with known terrorists in their country? They can't try them for crimes that didn't take place there, so they can't hold them, so they remain free. Yet the alternative is that they hold us hostage to their attitudes towards our criminal justice system. It seems as if both countries can potentially lose.

So Hamza in particular has been a problem for a long time. How to get him off the streets, stop his recruiting, his likely support for terror, his toxic poisoning of the discourse, his acting as a spokesman for the cause. So it's a pretty big deal that they figured something out.

Yet, the Times notes:

Some critics accused the United States of moving against an inconsequential figure to demonstrate progress in fighting terrorists. But Raymond W. Kelly, New York City's police commissioner, said Mr. Masri was a major figure.

"Some critics" is code for "we here, but we can't find anybody to quote." And, indeed, they don't.

But this is now becoming the classic Times refrain:

While Mr. Kelly said information from a "cooperating source" had led to the charges against Mr. Masri, it remained unclear why the cleric had been arrested at this particular juncture. Asked about the timing of the arrest, Mr. Ashcroft said only: "I don't want to get into the evidence of the case. During trial, the evidence will be clear."

How about, because we've wanted to do it for years and it's taken us until now to figure it out.

The Times notes that he says he is not linked to al Queda, but neglects to mention that this is a position he has adopted post Sept. 11 -- he was a bit less circumspect before that.

I also liked this:

Some, like Abu Qatada, who is said to have been the spiritual counselor of Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 hijacking plot, remain in prison in Britain without charge. Others, like Sheik Omar al-Bakri, leader of a movement called Al Muhajiroun, remain free and continue to carry out a robust ideological campaign.

A "robust ideological campaign" is what our presidential election is about. Al Muhajiroun preaches hate and violent jihad, thank you very much. What is the constant urge to sugarcoat who these guys are?

But the Times will stick to pattern, no matter what:

Even moderate Islamic figures showed some unease at Mr. Masri's detention.

"We are totally against his views as we have shown," said Ahmed Versi, editor of the newspaper Muslim News. "But the point of principle is an important one. There must be proper evidence against him which would stand in a court of law in this country."

And Anas Altikriti, a former president of the Muslim Association of Britain, declared: "The worrying thing is that these dawn raids and arrests are becoming quite a frequent occurrence in the Muslim community. It sets a flawed and dangerous precedent."

Only last month in Manchester, 10 people, most of them Iraqi Kurds, were arrested in connection with a supposed terror plot but then released without being charged.

NBC, on the other hand, last night had British Muslims on who were appalled by this man, thought he gave the entire community a black eye. The current president of the Muslim Association referred to him as a "lunatic."

Speaking of NBC, unlike the New York Times -- but like every other outlet I saw -- they gave equal attention to the charges Hamza faces. Notice that the Times gives roughly three words to the fact that Hamza is charged with trying to set up a terrorism training camp here. NBC is a bit more concerned with this. Maybe because their primary goal isn't downplaying the threat.

By the way, I've recommended this book before, but the best source I've found on the infiltration of violent jihadists into Western Europe is this one.

Comments

[Rob A.]

The NY Post has 2 articles on this, including a (brief) profile of NYPD Detective George Corey who busted his ass working this case.

Corey is another everyday hero who should become a household name, but won't.

[JonofAtlanta]

Cori:

Bill O'Reilly last night said that at least one story about Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the NYT for 28 STRAIGHT DAYS!!!

can this be true ? and if so, we bloodthirsty hawks need to be screaming about this -- why, it's almost as bad as Martha Burke at the Masters..

[Media Hound]

For a book on the infiltration of violent jihadists into America:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743234359/
 

JonofAtlanta: Yes it's true Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the NYT for 28 straight days -- all above the fold.

See comments in this thread for the full details:

http://rantingprofs.typepad.com/rantingprofs/2004/05/does_the_new_yo.html

[DaninVan]

It's no doubt been said before but hey, the NYT and newsmedia of similar inclination due their readership a huge disservice in not covering the World news in an unbiased manner. Bias is for the editorial page. Give the readers credit for enough intelligence to make up their own minds on issues.

[dauber]

American Jihad is an excellent bk, by the way.

[Pj]

I'm wondering about the law regarding political speech at all at a religious site such as a mosque or a church. I remember a kerfluffle not long ago when Clinton campaigned politically at the First AME church in LA, for instance.

How are mosques organized legally, what is required to earn that status, and how does political activity affect that status, if at all?

[Athena]

On the legal issue:

You can't endorse any candidate, party, or policy proposal in a church or mosque. If you decide to do that, your tax-exempt status is pulled.

*I think*