STARK RAVING DEAN

The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is. We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only.

This is utterly bizarre. President Bush has not yet nominated anyone to the Court, and the Kelo majority consisted of the Court's liberals (plus Anthony Kennedy), with the Court's conservatives (plus Sandra O'Connor) dissenting. Either Dean is astonishingly ignorant, or he assumes that young Democrats are.

As he does in speech after speech, Dean accused Republicans of being immoral:

We are Democrats because we have moral values, We think it's a moral value to stop stealing money out of the Social Security trust fund.

More lunacy. Ever since Social Security taxes started generating a surplus, that surplus has been spent on other government programs, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, and regardless of which party controlled either house of Congress. Dean can't possibly be ignorant of this fact.

Then there's this: "'I am sick of being divided!' Dean shouted over the applause." Yes, that's right: Howard Dean, uniter of Americans!

Yet Dean continues as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats cheer his absurd pronouncements. Isn't it reasonable to ask, at this point, whether there are any adults left in the Democratic Party? And if so, where are they? 

If al-Qaida is indeed shifting personnel out of Iraq, expect to hear more about Iraq as an "incubator" for terrorism. But what, pray tell, do the promoters of this theory imagine Zarqawi and his minions would have been doing these past two years if there had been no war in Iraq? Origami?  Sunday, July 31, 2005

www.powerlineblog.com

*

LEFTISTS STAGE BACKLASH WHILE AIR AMERICA ADMITS ITS THEFT

Brian Maloney has the latest installment of the Air America disgrace that revealed the liberal radio netlet's misuse of government funds under founder Evan Cohen's direction. Leftist bloggers have begun their inevitable backlash defending Air America, calling the story "phony" and irrelevant to Air America by trying to distingush between AA and its original owner, Progress Media -- which only had the one asset and whose chief executive sat on the board of the non-profit it helped to bankrupt through this "loan".

Well, the Left simply hasn't caught up to reality. Air America said in its second press release on this matter that it planned to pay back the money, a very strange thing to do if it didn't take it in the first place. As I pointed out yesterday, it's also a very convenient position to take -- considering that Gloria Wise has gone bankrupt and closed its doors. Apparently that little detail didn't go unnoticed by Air America's other critics, and the netlet's spokesperson told Fox News this:

"We're committed to paying this money and the terms are being worked out... We are awaiting direction from the investigation into how to proceed."

That certainly indicates that AA believes it took the money improperly, and also that it has had contact with the investigation into Gloria Wise's collapse and possible malfeasance with its grant monies. We know that Air America has had problems finding competent management (and an audience), but I doubt they'd be anxious to cough up $480,000 for no reason, especially in their present financial condition. It hardly sounds like a "phony" story to me.

Barbara O'Brien claims that the story is so obscure that she had difficulty tracking it down. On that point, she may be right. I wonder why that may be. Can anyone here at CQ come up with a reason that the Exempt Media might be disinclined to report on a story that shows Air America misusing government funds and taking money from poor kids and Alzheimers patients? Anyone at all?

Oh, let's not see the same hands ...  Sunday, July 31, 2005

www.captainsquartersblog.com

*

ITALY BANS THE BURQA

Shockwaves from the London bombings are still spreading through Europe, as Italy bans Islamic burqas. (Hat tip: mardukhai.)

ITALY has banned Islamic burqas under tough terrorism laws that provide two-year jail terms and E2000 ($3200) fines for anyone caught covering their face in a public place.

The counter-terrorism package, passed by Italy’s parliament yesterday, doubles the existing penalty for wearing a burqa or chador — traditional robes worn by Muslim women to cover their faces — or full-faced helmets or balaclavas in public.

We’ve featured the evil death cult summer camps of Hamas and other terror gangs many times at LGF, including many photos that are much more representative than the carefully chosen innocuous pictures that accompany this Chronicle article.  Sunday, July 31, 2005

*

SENSE OF PROPORTION

The New York Times took another shot at the effort to Take Back The Memorial, calling it "un-American": A Sense of Proportion at Ground Zero.

[T]his is not really a campaign about money or space. It is a campaign about political purity -- about how people remember 9/11 and about how we choose to read its aftermath, including the Iraq war. On their Web site, www.takebackthememorial.org, critics of the cultural plan at ground zero offer a resolution called Campaign America. It says that ground zero must contain no facilities "that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions, or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events." This, to us, sounds un-American.

They give themselves some wiggly room ("sounds to us"), but their point is clear: the NYT considers it "un-American" to oppose building a come-on-come-all political venue at the Ground Zero memorial. They continue blowing a "free speech" smoke screen to obscure the controversy: public funds are to be used to build a permanent institution at Ground Zero dedicated to airing political discourse, some of which will no doubt be sympathetic to the terrorists who murdered thousands there. Why else would the NYT be so concerned about "how people remember 9/11 and about how we choose to read its aftermath, including the Iraq war"? Is the NYT afraid that a memorial site dedicated solely to 9/11 will lead visitors to "politically incorrect" conclusions?

If the publicly funded "cultural facilities" are built, it would be censorship to regulate what artists and speakers say. That is why the "cultural facilities" must not be built at the WTC memorial site. Take Back The Memorial continues its petition drives (details here).

Also see:
Michele Malkin: WHO ARE THEY CALLING "UN-AMERICAN?"
Charles Johnson: NYT: "Take Back the Memorial" is Un-American

UPDATE:: Also, do not miss the work by Tim Sumner at 9/11 Families for America, in particular this post: American or not?

The 9/11 memorial at the World Trade Center should be a place for remembrance of those we lost and 9/11 should be allowed to speak to each visitor to Ground Zero, uninterrupted. At Dachau, I saw no debate being held about Chilean refugees. At Gettysburg, I saw no Holocaust "art" center overlooking Little Round Top. At Martin Luther King Jr.'s memorial in Atlanta, I saw no "public square" where the discussion might include the merits of segregation nor would anyone need to be reminded how wholly inappropriate such a discussion at that marker would be. 9/11's history should not be up for grabs and holding political discussions at Ground Zero is not appropriate for that site or any memorial site. Placing unrelated activities upon hallowed ground is disrespectful to those who fell at such places and everyone who remembers them.  Sunday, July 31, 2005

www.coxandforkum.com

*

IRAN CALLS EUROPE'S HAND

The mullahs of Iran moved today to push the nuclear nonproliferation talks into further crisis after a unilateral deadline they set for a European proposal expired. Iran announced that they will once again begin processing uranium ore, a step that likely will bring an end to the EU-3's efforts to reach accommodation with Teheran:

Iran has announced it will resume its controversial nuclear programme imminently in the face of a European Union appeal to wait for talks.

Officials said they would inform UN nuclear inspectors of the move on Monday and then begin converting raw uranium at a plant in Isfahan.

The UK, which is leading EU attempts to negotiate a compromise, said the move would make further talks difficult.

In fact, diplomats tell the BBC that offering any new proposals while Iran processes uranium will be pointless, and they expect Europe to defer to the IAEA instead. That will force the agency to find Iran in noncompliance with the nonproliferation pact to which Teheran is a signatory and prompt the United Nations Security Council to review the dispute. This means that the US now can take the lead on pressing for further economic sanctions on Iran, a step long desired by the Bush administration in order to curtail Iran's involvement in terrorist operations.

The UNSC will probably see a tremendous fight over this issue, one which will look very similar to the debate on Iraq. Again, France, Russia, and China all have commercial and military ties to the Islamic republic and have vested business interests in keeping sanctions off of Teheran. However, they can hardly recommend no action at all for Iranian instransigence on nonproliferation; to do so would send a green light for other nations so inclined to start arming themselves with nuclear weaponry. Russia hardly wants to see the Central Asian republics that formerly comprised the Soviet Union to get ideas about countering Iranian nuclear power. For that matter, neither would China.

So what will happen, if Iran does not back down and Europe pulls out? I suspect that France, Russia, and China will agree to some form of economic sanctions only after referring the matter back to the IAEA once for renegotiation while Iran continues working on the bomb. After that, they will work once again to undermine the sanctions and keep their commercial interests alive in Iran, just as they did with Iraq.

The one wild card will be the Anglo-American partnership that took matters into their own hands in Iraq after the UNSC refused to act after sixteen formal demands for Iraqi compliance on their cease-fire agreement. The three other veto-wielding UNSC members will recall that their obtuseness led to a war despite their best efforts to prop up their last client state. It might convince them to put enough pressure on the Iranian mullahcracy to reconsider their position. It probably won't work, but they will certainly want to try.

RETHINKING SAINT COLIN

Today's Washington Post contains a glowing profile of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the changes she has made in the nation's foreign-policy arena. Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler note her many substantial and subtle changes at a department often seen as an obstacle to carrying out George Bush's foreign policy goals. In doing so, an undercurrent of unspoken criticism of Rice's predecessor seems apparent:

Now six months on the job, Rice has clearly wrested control of U.S. foreign policy. The once heavy-handed Defense Department still weighs in, but Rice wins most battles -- in strong contrast to her predecessor, Colin L. Powell. White House staff is consulted, but Rice designed the distinctive framework for the administration's second-term foreign policy.

In short order, she has demonstrated a willingness to bend on tactics to accommodate the concerns of allies without ceding on broad principles, what she calls "practical idealism." She also conducts a more aggressive personal diplomacy, breaking State Department records for foreign travel and setting up diplomatic tag teams with top staff on urgent issues. ...

In the interview, Rice said she discovered on her first European trip that, particularly on the Iran issue, "somehow we'd gotten into a position where it was the United States that was the problem . . . that was not a good place to be." So she formulated action that put the onus back on Iran and, later, North Korea.

"Sometimes the power of diplomacy is not just saying no, but figuring out a way to protect your interests and principles to help the other guy -- or in this case the other countries -- move forward as well," Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said. "It is the kind of diplomacy some of our critics had felt we were no longer capable of, that we were a kind of superpower saying 'yes' or 'no' but not anywhere in between."

When Rice first got nominated to this position, Democrats and editorialists expounded on the dangers of the president eliminating dissent from his Cabinet. They held Colin Powell as the last person of stature that would keep honest debate on policy occurring at the highest levels of the administration. Rice, by comparison, represented an attempt to surround the President with "yes men", so to speak, that would simply do his bidding without argument. The results in Rice's case, these experts predicted, would be further isolation and withdrawal of cooperation from allies around the world.

This started towards the end of Powell's reign at State. Media organization love Colin Powell, and for good reason: he looks and sounds impressive, he served his country honorably for decades in and out of the military, and he communicates his clear and precise thinking with a moderation and gravitas that undoubtedly attracts attention. The media decided that Powell, who they had earlier derided for not airing his personal and policy differences with Bush publicly, was the Oracle of all wisdom on foreign policy and repeatedly featured him in article after article during Rice's confirmation period and for a short time thereafter.

Now, however, the Post appears to have changed its mind, although one would have to have some familiarity with their previous coverage of Powell to recognize it. First, the article states several examples of Rice acting what many suppose Bush's policies demand. She initiated one-on-one contact with North Korea in order to get the multilateral talks back on line. She overrules Donald Rumsfeld on foreign-policy efforts. Rice reinvented the policy on Iran, working with Europe to set a slate of incentives that the US would back in exchange for a verifiable cessation of their nuclear program. She even found a formulation that the Bush administration would not veto at the UN which allowed the International Criminal Court to investigate war crimes in the Sudan.

Rice did all of this in six months. Powell, for all his gravitas and supposed opposition to Bush, could not do this in four years, a fact only obliquely referenced by Wright and Kessler on the fact that Powell couldn't get the Bush administration to even drop the "axis of evil" connotation for Iran. The Post also notes with a heavy helping of snark that Rice may "break ... State Department records for foreign travel[.]" Certainly the notoriously home-bound Powell never threatened to do that in his tenure at State.

Once again, the media has "misunderestimated" George Bush. First, Powell may never have provided the dissent that his aides proclaimed through anonymous leaks to journalists. If he did, he certainly didn't dissent very effectively. Second, this calls into question whether these positions that Rice has reversed ever were Bush's policies or Powell's. If Bush insisted on them, Rice certainly has changed his mind -- something that Democrats and the media tried to convince Americans that could never happen without Powell at the helm at State.

The Post appears to have decided that Condi Rice has the right stuff to lead State, and even gets Senator Joe Biden, one of her critics during her confirmation, to grudgingly agree. They also seem to realize that Rice's spectacular success calls into question all of the fawning coverage given to Colin Powell, especially towards the end of his time at State. They don't have the courage to do this re-evaluation overtly, but they leave enough subtle clues to make this conclusion quite easily reached.  Sunday, July 31, 2005

*

WHAT MAKES CLEAN, YOUNG MEN EXPLODE?

Mohammad Sidique Khan was never on the corner, a detail friends offer as a compliment. In a neighborhood where many young South Asian men had lost their way, or foundered into drug dealing, Mr. Khan's peers admired his focus on family, work, working out, and Islam.

And you thought that getting into drugs is the worst that could happen? Khan, of course, was the oldest one of the London four who blew themselves up, killing over 50 others, of July 7. "The New York Times" continues (registration required):

Mr. Khan, Mr. Tanweer and Mr. Hussain were part of a larger clique of young British-raised South Asian men in Beeston, a neighborhood of Leeds, who turned their backs on what they came to see as a decadent, demoralizing Western culture. Instead, the group embraced an Islam whose practice was often far more fundamentalist than their fathers', and always more political, focused passionately on Muslim suffering at Western hands.

In many ways, the transformation has had positive elements: the men live healthier and more constructive lives than many of their peers here, Asian or white, who have fallen prey to drugs, alcohol or petty crime.

And in other ways, the transformation has had negative elements - and the rest is now history. Amy Waldman then tries to find out what had made such healthy and clean-cut men explode: "Many here see answers in the sense of injustice at events both at home and abroad that is far more widespread among Muslims than many Westerners recognize; in the rigid and deeply political form of Islam that increasing numbers of educated European Muslims are gravitating to; in the difficulty some children of Muslim immigrants in Europe have had in finding their place or direction."

It's that last factor that particularly interests me - just why are the second-generation migrants from (in this case) Muslim countries less assimilated than their parents? The parents came to Great Britain in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, at the time when racism was far more prevalent and diversity was not celebrated the way it is today. More often than not they came with little or nothing, to live in a very alien society on the other side of the world. Yet terrorism was not their response to the realities and challenges of new life. Why? As Fareed Zakaria writes, "they did not become murderers; they started fish-and-chips shops."

The parents, quite simply, were far too busy making a decent life for themselves - and for their children - to think about politics. The children's flirtation with radicalism and terrorism is a function of two factors - time and opportunity. Thanks to their parents' hard work, they have reasonably comfortable lives, hence no pressure to try to make it in order to keep their heads above water. They can afford to drift aimlessly or engage in professional pursuits that are far less time consuming than running a small family business. Either way, there's plenty more time on one's hands, should one choose to feel alienated, oppressed or angry.

The overwhelming majority of young Muslim men, of course, don't become terrorist in those circumstances. Only a handful do, with more perhaps being quietly sympathetic to the actions, or at least to the sentiments behind the actions, of their more daring peers. Should we blame parents? Did they spoil their children, and fail to instill them the values of hard work and drive to succeed? Or didn't they perhaps pay their children enough attention, too busy trying to make it in the adopted country? Ironic, since all that hard work was ultimately for the kids - so they wouldn't have to face the same pressures, and go through the same travails to have a decent life.

It is the same sorts of questions that ordinary, decent, hard-working parents - migrant or not - always ask themselves when their progeny goes off the rails, whether it is into the world of substance abuse and addiction, violence and crime, or some other sort of rebellion. This is usually a private tragedy and regret of an individual family, with little resonance beyond the closest circle of kin. This time, however, the shockwaves rock the whole society. The difference is a sick ideology that preys of young minds and fosters resentment and hatred.

See also a related discussion at Normblog.  Sunday, July 31, 2005

www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com

*

YOUTH WING OF UK MUSLIM GROUP CALLS FOR JIHAD

Here I go again, reporting on what jihadists are saying and doing. Don't I know that calling attention to such activity makes moderate Muslims angry?

I anxiously await Sir Iqbal Sacranie's response to this, and his unveiling of a comprehensive program to convert jihadists to Islamic moderation. I am confident that we will be getting this any day now -- right, Iqbal? Iqbal? Anyone?

From The Independent via the New Zealand Herald, with thanks to Designnut:

Children as young as 11 are being targeted by radical Muslims who appear to have infiltrated a mainstream Muslim website, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. Literature aimed at children between 11 and 18 on the youth section of the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB) website calls on them to "boycott those who openly wage war against Allah".

The article containing that quote, entitled "Imam Hassan al-Banna on jihad", goes on to say: "Jihad is a powerful invigorating yearning for Islam's might and glory ... which makes you cry when looking at the weakness of Muslims today and the humiliating tragedies crushing him to death everywhere. "

Jihad is to be a soldier for Allah. When the bugle calls ... you should be the first to answer the call to join the ranks for jihad."

Other articles on atheism and secularism appear to be against integration. One article is entitled "Zionism, a black historical record", and another, "Israel simply has no right to exist". The ISB immediately disowned this content after being informed of it by the IoS, and promised to remove it.

Mmm hmmm.  Sunday, July 31, 2005

http://jihadwatch.org

*

UNIVERSITY REBUKES GAY-BASHING MUSLIM EMPLOYEE

Political correctness collides head-on with hard-line Islam at a New Jersey university. Pandemonium ensues. (Hat tip: cimom.)

A state university in New Jersey has reprimanded a student-employee for describing homosexuality as a “perversion” in a private e-mail that he sent a female professor, after she sent him an unsolicited announcement about a university event that promoted lesbian relationships.

But Jihad Daniel, 63, who works for William Paterson University repairing computer hardware and takes graduate-level courses part time, said he was only expressing his Muslim religious beliefs when he responded to professor Arlene Holpp Scala, head of the university’s women’s studies department.

Mr. Daniel wants a letter of reprimand from the university’s president removed from his permanent employee file. The letter says he violated state discrimination and harassment regulations for using the term “perversion.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit group based in Philadelphia that is assisting Mr. Daniel in his fight with the university, calls the action taken against him “absurd” and an infringement of his free-speech rights. “William Paterson University is knowingly disregarding the U.S. Constitution. No one here was ‘harassed’ or ‘threatened,’ as defined by the law. The university simply strongly disliked a student’s point of view,” said Greg Lukianoff, FIRE’s director of legal and public advocacy.

Mr. Daniel received an e-mail from Miss Scala on March 7 advertising an upcoming viewing and discussion of the film “Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House.” The e-mail referred to the film as a “lesbian relationship story.”

Mr. Daniel replied to the professor the next day asking that he not be sent “any mail about ‘Connie and Sally’... and ‘Adam and Steve.’?”

“These are perversions,” Mr. Daniel wrote. “The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the creator of the heavens and the universe is never mentioned.”

ARAB COLUMNIST IS FED UP, VICTIMIZED

Here’s one Muslim columnist who’s sick and tired of apologizing to the neocolonial occupiers, and not afraid to say it in print: Arabs shouldn’t have to apologize. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

I am fed up with the ceaseless requests by columnists, religious personalities and other American public figures for Arabs and Muslims to apologize for terrorist acts committed by thugs and murderers in the name of Islam.

As far as I am concerned, the final straw came a couple of weeks ago when the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, paid for a national advertisement repudiating terrorism in the name of Islam.

...

It is rejection of U.S. and British policies in the Middle East, not Islam, that has promoted terrorism against America. And for the benefits of those who do not know, 95 percent of Middle Easterners are Muslims. Hence, it is only natural that those opposing the United States and Britain in the region would be Muslims. In India, they would have been Hindu; in Latin America or Northern Ireland, they would have been Catholic.

More important, it was the British and the United States that drew first blood. The Middle East didn’t come to America or go to Britain; rather, America and Britain went to the Middle East. Both powers used and abused regimes, toppling some and keeping others in power. They never thought that the people they were helping suppress were human beings with needs, beliefs and emotions. They didn’t care as long as their interests were served.

America’s experience in the Middle East is no different from its Southeast Asia stint, and look at the mess it left in that region.

However, while the calamity of Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea might be rationalized by the Cold War or even a domino theory, there is nothing to rationalize the invasion of Iraq except ideological stupidity. The United States illegally invaded and decimated a country that did not threaten its security and, in the process, unleashed one of the most vile and ruthless insurgencies the region has ever seen. And as it did in Vietnam, when the going got tough, it is planning to pull out. The result will be a protracted instability and turmoil that no country in the region can escape.  Sunday, July 31, 2005

VIRGINIA IMAM: "THE CALL TO REFORM ISLAM IS AN ALIEN CALL"

The new imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church Virginia rejects any call to reform Islam. (Hat tip: Americain.)

And he’s a fan of Hamas.

FALLS CHURCH, Va. — The voice of the new imam at one of the largest mosques on the East Coast rang loud from the pulpit during Friday services: “The call to reform Islam is an alien call.”

People who do not understand Islam are the ones seeking to change it, said Shaker Elsayed, the new spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington. “Ignorance comes from outside circles who know nothing about us.”

Though his role as the mosque’s religious leader is a new one, Elsayed is well known as a civic activist in a large Muslim community that has been subject to sharp scrutiny ever since the Sept. 11 attacks. His face is a familiar one at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, where he has lent support to area Muslims he sees as victims of a federal witch hunt — from those prosecuted for immigration violations to soliciting treason.

Elsayed, who assumed duties as imam on June 1, also has served as secretary general of the Muslim American Society. Some federal authorities and U.S. Muslim leaders suspect the advocacy group has links with the Muslim Brotherhood, a seminal anti-Western group that has inspired other hard line Islamic organizations. Elsayed, however, said he is not a member of the Brotherhood.

He has also served as an unofficial spokesman for the family of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who is accused of joining al-Qaida while studying overseas and plotting to assassinate President Bush. Abu Ali grew up in Falls Church, and worshipped at Dar al-Hijrah.

With all his activities, it’s perhaps not surprising that Elsayed’s sermons seem to carry political overtones. On a recent Friday, preaching to more than 500 men and women _ with the genders worshipping separately as is customary _ he said without mentioning specific nations that: “Islam forbids you to give allegiance to those who kick you off your homeland, and to those who support those who kick you off your homeland. We do have license to respond with all force necessary to answer our attackers.”

Asked after the sermon to elaborate, Elsayed said that opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East is different than viewing the American people as the enemy.

Talking about his views on militant groups like Hamas, which the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist organization, Elsayed compared the Palestinian group formed in 1987 to Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress — organizations that resorted to violent resistance only after decades of injustice.

“Everybody jumps on Hamas,” Elsayed said. “Look at how long Israel has occupied (Palestinian lands). How long did it take to say enough is enough?” Still, he said support for Hamas’ objectives does not mean he always supports their tactics, which at times have included suicide bombings. “Islam calls for the minimum effective response to aggression,” Elsayed said. [And if this seems like outrageous double-talk, that’s because it is. —ed.]

Muqtedar Khan, an expert on Islam and a political scientist at Adrian College in Michigan, said Dar al-Hijrah is not a typical American mosque and Elsayed is not a typical American imam. “Shaker Elsayed is more like a political figure than a religious figure,” said Khan, who worshipped at Dar al-Hijrah for several years while attending Georgetown University as a graduate student. “Dar al-Hijrah is a very Arab-centric mosque, very much centered on Arab politics.”

The mosque, he said, is more typical of what one might find in the Arab world, with the rhetoric toned down a little bit for fear of drawing excessive attention in a post-Sept. 11 world.

Very interesting. In other words, they’re hiding the true depth of their hatred.

MODERATE UK ISLAMIC LEADER: NO SUCH THING AS AL QAEDA

British police invited the most respected Islamic cleric in Birmingham to join them in a press conference promoting cooperation between Muslims and law enforcement.

They were shocked ... shocked! ... when Sheikh Mohammad Naseem proceeded to call Tony Blair a liar, and said DNA evidence is meaningless, the bombing suspects could have been “innocent passengers,” and there’s no such thing as Al Qaeda. (Hat tip: m.)

The most senior Islamic cleric in Birmingham claimed yesterday that Muslims were being unjustly blamed in the war on terrorism and that the eight suspects in the two bombing attacks on London “could have been innocent passengers”.

Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of the city’s central mosque, called Tony Blair a “liar” and “unreliable witness” and questioned whether CCTV footage issued of the suspected bombers was of the perpetrators. He said that Muslims “all over the world have never heard of an organisation called al-Qa’eda”.

Mr Naseem, who was speaking after police seized Yasin Hassan Omar in Birmingham, delivered his unprompted outburst when he was invited to a press conference with West Midlands police and Birmingham city council to help calm fears of racial or religious tension after the arrest. His comments shocked senior police officers. ...

To the obvious embarrassment of council officials and police standing next to him, Mr Naseem said the Government and security services “were not to be relied upon”.

He said: “Tony Blair has told lies on going to Iraq and in a court of law if a witness has proved to be a liar he ceases to be a reliable witness. So we cannot give our blind trust to the Government. To have that trust it is important that the process of law should be independent, open and transparent. I am also sad that unfortunately the impression has been given that Muslims are to be targeted in this war against terror. There seems to be a directive to target Muslims. Why do we not have an open mind about this?

“Muslim bashing seems to be more earnest than the need for national unity and harmony. Terrorists can be anybody - we will have to see [whether the bombers are Muslims]. The process is not open; the process is not transparent; the process is not independent. I do not have faith in the system as it stands.”

Mr Naseem is one of the most respected Muslims in the city and is considered a moderate. He has regular meetings with the chief constable to discuss religious harmony.

Mr Naseem said that while it was vital that terrorism was stamped out and that there was never any justification for it, the Government had not helped by going to war in Iraq.

Dismissing the Prime Minister’s insistence that the war had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, he said: “Tony Blair ... is not going to be perceived as a reliable witness. His comments could motivate someone to take the law into his own hands. Some people have been caught but I have not seen any evidence. The process of law is not open.”

Asked about the suspects’ DNA being found at the scene of the first attacks, he said: “DNA can match you, but that does not mean you are going to commit a crime. Thousands of youths are passing by and caught on CCTV, so how do you know it is them?”  Saturday, July 30, 2005

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog

*

http://news.bostonherald.com/holbert

*

ROBERTS PAPERS REVEAL THE CONSERVATIVE WITHIN

Today's Washington Post editorial on John Roberts, "Young Lawyer Roberts", reviews the documentation released so far by the Bush White House on their Supreme Court Nominee -- and finds that (surprise!) Roberts will not transform into the second coming of David Souter. However, beyond branding Roberts as an unabashed conservative, the Post doesn't do much except excerpt passages from long-passed legal debates within the Reagan administration, passages that hardly show him as the reactionary that Democrats desperately want people to believe:

While it's dangerous to make judgments based on a quick and necessarily spotty reading of quarter-century-old documents, the picture that emerges from the first wave of papers, including a huge batch unveiled from Judge Roberts's tenure as an adviser to President Ronald Reagan's attorney general, shows a lawyer fully in tune with the staunchly conservative legal views of the administration he was serving -- and indeed, at times to the right of some of its leading conservative lawyers.

Those who fear or hope, depending on their political positions, that Judge Roberts might be a stealth nominee in the mold of Justice David H. Souter -- a supposed conservative whose performance on the bench turned out to be far more moderate than predicted -- will find no support for such predictions in the papers that have emerged so far.

It doesn't take long for the Post to try to gin up a bogeyman, however, as it describes Roberts as "expressing hostility to affirmative action programs and to a broad application of the Voting Rights Act." Expressing hostility? That's editorial-speak for opposing interpretations of both not grounded in the law. The use of emotional language in describing Roberts' position doesn't appear accidental. The next sentence states that Congress should craft legislation that outlawed practices that did actual harm to minority voters in the proposed VRA instead of creating an amorphous, subjective standard of judging the "effect" of policies that would give courts wide latitude in arbitrarily creating new law through precedent. In short, he wanted Congress to write the law intelligently and clearly so that its interpretation and application could objectively apply regardless of which court ruled on it.

That doesn't sound like hostility; it sounds like common sense.

Another point which disturbs the Post was Roberts' objection to state prisoners using federal habeas corpus to file lawsuits. In 1981, that effort had tied up federal courts with a slew of ridiculous and inane court actions from inmates who literally had nothing better to do with their time than appear in court. It got them out of the prison yard and extra time at their facilities to prepare their cases. They mostly represented themselves or got pro bono representation, so it cost them nothing. Roberts made sensible arguments for curtailing the access, something the Post even acknowledges was needed -- but then blames Roberts for "the high court and Congress hav[ing] since gone too far."

So Roberts got Congress and the Supreme Court to go too far just by writing this one little memo? Is that what the Post wants us to believe?

The Post needs to rethink its approach to judicial criticism and quit issuing hysterical rants based on advisory memos, especially by applying emotional language where it doesn't belong to juice up an exceedingly weak case. It should take heart in Roberts' assistance to Sandra Day O'Connor in her confirmation process instead of treating it as an indication of some latent dishonesty, especially since the media has spent the last few weeks extolling O'Connor as a judicial saint. It won't make any difference in the confirmation of John Roberts, but getting a grip would have a salutory effect on the Post's credibility.  Sunday, July 31, 2005

www.captainsquartersblog.com

*

OPRAH SUCKS ALERT

By Debbie Schlussel