Man sentenced 10 years for NYC synagogue bomb plot  

An Algerian man who pleaded guilty to rare state-level terrorism charges that he plotted to blow up New York City synagogues was sentenced Friday to 10 years in prison.

The United States has longstanding laws against the practice of FGM on U.S. soil and in [...]]]>

NEW YORK (TrustLaw) – The ancient, brutal practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), once considered primarily a problem of the developing world, is a growing threat to girls and women in the United States, according to a new report.

The United States has longstanding laws against the practice of FGM on U.S. soil and in January, passed a federal law against sending young women outside the country for so-called “vacation cutting”. However, girls living in America increasingly are at risk of the procedure both at home and abroad, according to research by Sanctuary for Families.

The New York City-based non-profit organisation, which specialises in gender-based violence, said up to 200,000 girls and women in the United States are at risk of FGM and that the number is growing.

“People in the United States think that FGM only happens to people outside of the United States, but in all actuality, people here all over the country have been through FGM,” said Jaha, 23, formerly from Gambia and now a survivor and advocate against FGM.

“Kids that were born in this country are taken back home every summer and undergo this procedure,” she was quoted as saying in the report.

The study cited analysis of data from the 2000 census that found between 1990 and 2000 the number of girls and women in the United States at risk of the procedure – which involves the partial or total removal of external female genitalia – increased by 35 percent.

Most prevalent in immigrant African and Middle Eastern communities, FGM generally originates in the belief by some cultures that it preserves a girl’s virginity before marriage and discourages her from promiscuity after she is wed. In many communities, a girl is deemed unfit for marriage if she has not undergone FGM.

The report said FGM has been performed in the United States by health care providers who support FGM or do not want to question families’ cultural practices.

Whether performed covertly on U.S. soil or in ceremonies held in ancestral homelands during school vacations, the procedure often is done by traditional practitioners using crude implements, such as razor blades and broken glass. They often operate in unsanitary conditions, far from medical facilities, without anaesthesia, antiseptics or antibiotics.

The physical and psychological effects can be devastating and even fatal. FGM can cause severe pain during sexual intercourse, haemorrhage, shock, complications in childbirth and fistula. It can also lead to depression and anxiety.

“FGM has affected me emotionally throughout my entire life. Those terrible moments stay with me and I just cannot forget them,” a 53-year-old woman named Nafissatou, originally from Guinea, told researchers.

“When I went to the hospital to give birth to my children, my experience with FGM was what I remembered most. Every time I shower, I think about it. There is a sadness and emptiness I fell every day because of what FGM took from me,” she said.

LACK OF PROSECUTIONS

The United Nations last December called for a global ban on FGM, but, as with laws in the United States, implementation is extremely difficult and, to date, prosecutions have been rare.

The United States has had a law against FGM since 1996 and 20 states have passed their own statutes. But, according to the report, as of 2012, there have been no prosecutions under federal law, and only one criminal case has been brought forward under a state statute.

One problem is that families in the United States, even those who oppose FGM for their daughters, often find themselves under severe pressure from their extended families to subject girls to the procedure.

Another obstacle is a lack of reporting of FGM either by victims, girls at risk or their families. Part of the reason may be due to ignorance of the law, the report found.

“However, reasons for underreporting likely also include reluctance on the part of the girl or her family to come forward, precisely because they know and fear the legal penalties for doing so,” it said.

“Many girls fear that innocent family members, especially their mothers, will be considered complicit in their family’s efforts to force them to undergo FGM, or worry that if they report their relatives, they will be arrested, prosecuted, and possibly deported,” it added.

The report makes a number of recommendations on ways to prevent FGM in the United States.

Key among them:

–Outreach and education to immigrant communities about the legal, physical and psychological consequences of FGM.

–Encouraging community and religious leaders to educate their communities about the harm and illegality of FGM

–Guidelines and training to assist front-line professions, such as law enforcement agents, teachers and health care workers to identify and protect girls at risk.

–Robust enforcement of laws prohibiting FGM,  not only on U.S. soil but in the case of girls sent abroad for the procedure.

While American lawyers are dismissive of the possibility of a suit, they may not be thinking this through.

In the Fox News article linked below, a US attorney is quoted as saying [...]]]> Iran has threatened to sue the filmmakers who made the Academy award winning movie “Argo,” over their portrayal of Iran in the movie.

While American lawyers are dismissive of the possibility of a suit, they may not be thinking this through.

In the Fox News article linked below, a US attorney is quoted as saying that nothing would come of such a suit in the USA.

This much may be true. But that is where the whole issue of libel tourism raises its ugly head.

The report indicates that the Iranians are talking to a French attorney about the possibility of such a suit. There is not as of yet any mention of where such a suit would be filed, but the smart money isn’t on it being filed in the USA.

The suit is no doubt frivolous, but that won’t stop the Iranians from filing it somewhere at this point. To NOT file it now would result in their losing face. There are unfortunately many jurisdictions around the world which do not respect freedom of expression like we do in the USA. Hollywood can’t completely ignore the suit because if the Iranians were to get a default judgment, it could potentially result in complications for the distribution of movies in that locale going forward. Moreover, Hollywood makes big money off of international distribution of its products now; the days of movies being released only in the USA for American audiences are long gone.

So this is something that bears watching…

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/03/13/irans-threatened-lawsuit-against-hollywood-has-no-legal-basis-experts-say/

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Larry Metz’s HB351 has already passed through the House Civil Justice Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee and is set for a floor vote soon.

In the Senate, Senator Alan Hays’ SB58 has passed the Senate Judiciary [...]]]> American Laws for American Courts legislation is progressing through the Florida legislature.

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Larry Metz’s HB351 has already passed through the House Civil Justice Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee and is set for a floor vote soon.

In the Senate, Senator Alan Hays’ SB58 has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Jillian Rayfield over at Salon.com has chosen to cover this story by getting it wrong:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/florida_advances_sharia_ban/

First, the headline of her article is inaccurate: “Florida advances Sharia ban”

No, Ms. Rayfield, American Laws for American Courts does not “ban” Sharia. Evidently, she did not bother to actually READ the legislation. There is no mention of Sharia anywhere in the bill. Nor would it ban Sharia. That is a myth. American Laws for American Courts is designed to protect individual, fundamental constitutional rights. In as much as Sharia is compatible with individual fundamental constitutional rights, there is no conflict. If Sharia is not compatible with individual fundamental constitutional rights, then conflicts could indeed arise, because in America we must abide by the US constitution.

Second comes the sub-headline (note we haven’t even gotten to her actual article and it is already littered with flaws!): “The state Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill to ban “foreign law”

Once again, not so. SB58 is NOT a ban on foreign law. Had Ms. Rayfield actually READ the bill she would have known that. American Laws for American Courts is not a blanket ban on foreign law. That is another myth spread by people who don’t appreciate our constitutional rights. What American Laws for American Courts does is prevent a court in the state from applying a foreign law or foreign legal doctrine if the application of that foreign law or foreign legal doctrine would result in the violation of any of the parties’ fundamental constitutional rights. The operative language:

Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.

Ms. Rayfield repeats her mistake in the first paragraph of the article when she writes that the bill “prevents courts from considering ‘foreign law’ when handing down legal decisions.”

None of that language appears anywhere in the bill. The words “consider” or “considering” do not appear in the bill language. Nor do the words “prevent” or “prevents.”

Ms. Rayfield provides an assist to the Miami Herald’s own disinformation campaign when she quotes them. The Herald claims that SB58 would “ban courts or other legal authorities from using religious or foreign law…”

The equally moronic reporter who penned that homily was Rochelle Koff. Wrong, Ms. Koff. READ THE BILL.

There is NO mention anywhere in the bill of religious law. In fact, the only mention of religion at all in the bill is to ensure that it cannot be used to violate the 1st amendment sanctity of religion. Again, American Laws for American Courts does NOT ban any foreign law. It does NOT ban any religious law. What it does is protect the fundamental constitutional rights of Floridians, something that Jillian Rayfield and Rochelle Koff evidently have a problem with. We find that particularly curious, since one of those fundamental constitutional rights is contained in the 1st amendment of the US constitution, including freedom of the press.

Ms. Rayfield goes on to say that “bills like this have popped up in state legislatures across the country…” Actually, Ms. Rayfield, American Laws for American Courts hasn’t just “popped up,” it has passed into law in 4 states since 2010 with overwhelmingly bipartisan votes in each case.

Finally, Ms. Rayfield claims that back in 2011 neither Rep. Metz nor Senator Hays could name an instance in which a state court had used “international” or “Islamic law” to make a decision. (First a point of clarification: “international law” and “foreign law” are two very different things. ALAC has nothing to do with international law at all. Evidently, Ms. Rayfield does not know what international law is.)

We won’t be so presumptuous as to speak on behalf  of Messrs. Metz or Hays, but we certainly can speak to the issue of whether Islamic law had been used in a state court to make a decision. The Center for Security Policy has produced an invaluable report on the subject, entitled Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases. The report evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.

These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process.  These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah.  When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.

The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. The American Public Policy Alliance has provided links to the 10 most instructive examples:

http://publicpolicyalliance.org/faq/ten-american-families-and-shariah-law/

Since Ms. Rayfield couldn’t be bothered to read a 5-page double-spaced piece of legislation, it hardly comes as surprising that she failed to research the issue of Shariah arising in US courts.

Significantly, of the 50 sample cases analyzed by the Center for Security Policy, four were in fact from the state of Florida:

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/?cat=53

Islamist leaders in the US often declare that Shariah is compatible with the constitution. Again, in as much as Shariah is compatible with fundamental constitutional rights, there is no conflict. But if those Islamist leaders are being dishonest, and Shariah does violate fundamental constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, due process and equal protection, then conflicts could arise.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/florida_advances_sharia_ban/

For obvious reasons, this campaign raised eye brows across the country, especially since $3 million was more than the annual budget for ICNA’s entire operation up until that [...]]]> With great fanfare, in mid-2012 the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) embarked upon a $3 million public relations campaign to promote Shariah (Islamic law) in America.

For obvious reasons, this campaign raised eye brows across the country, especially since $3 million was more than the annual budget for ICNA’s entire operation up until that point.

But that was not the only reason to be concerned. ICNA is a nefarious organization with a troubling history and even more troubling associations. And now, ICNA’s public relations campaign has made its way to Tallahassee, the capital of the state of Florida. The image below was sent to us by a reader who snapped this photograph at a busy intersection in Tallahassee.

The people of Tallahassee and the entire state of Florida may be interested in knowing just who is behind the effort to foist Shariah off on them. The Center for Security Policy has issued a fact sheet on ICNA that exposes this organization for what it is. We have reproduced that fact sheet here in its entirety:

Center for Security Policy — Community Awareness Alert

ICNA’s Campaign for Shariah Law in America Hides Extremist Beliefs and Associations

This Community Awareness Alert informs local media, community leaders and law enforcement about the known extremist beliefs and actions of leaders of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).  ICNA has announced a “$3 million dollar” campaign promoting Shariah law in America, featuring billboards in at least 15 U.S. cities, “Shariah seminars” on 20 college campuses, and town hall-style forums and interfaith events in 25 cities.  For more information, go to www.shariahthethreat.org/icna.

When you know the facts, you can help educate and prepare your community.  Don’t get scammed by ICNA. 

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) was founded in 1971 by leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami[1], an anti-American,[2] fundamentalist, Taliban-supporting organization also known as the Pakistani branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Jamaat’s primary goal is the establishment of Islamic states worldwide, governed by the tyrannical, oppressive system of Shariah law. [3]

1. ICNA reveres Ayatollah Khomeini: After 9/11, ICNA’s PR campaign for the “Great Leaders of the last 100 Years” featured Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the anti-American, violent Shi’ite revolution and totalitarian regime in Iran.  The campaign stayed up at the website for years before ICNA scrubbed it, prior to mounting the current PR campaign promoting Shariah law in America.[4]
2. ICNA reveres Qutb and Mawdudi, the inspiration for al Qaeda: ICNA’s “Great Leaders of the last 100 Years” PR campaign also included the two great ideological leaders of modern jihadist terrorism: Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, both primary  influences on al Qaeda. [5]
3. ICNA’s role models advocate jihad to achieve political goals: ICNA’s identifed “Great Movements of the Last 100 Years” included Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood), and Pakistani Islamist groups Jama’at-e-Islami and Tablighi Jama’at.[6]
4. ICNA’s Past President was also a leader of Hamas-funder KindHearts as recently as 2005: ICNA’s Past President Zulfiqar Ali Shah was also President of the KindHearts “Charity” South Asia Division in 2005, whose assets were frozen in 2006 by the U.S. Treasury for funneling funds to Hamas[7].  KindHearts is still legally contesting the U.S. Treasury’s previous designation as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organization. [8]  Hamas is a designated terrorist organization responsible for thousands of murders.
5. ICNA’s Past Secretary General is under investigation for civilian executions:ICNA’s past Secretary General and Vice President Ashrafuz Zaman Khan, also a past President of the ICNA NY Chapter, is reportedly about to be indicted for war crimes by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal for the systematic execution of civilians during the civil war.  Bangladeshi groups claim Khan was a chief executioner for the al-Badr force, personally killing seven Dhaka University teachers in the city of Mirpur.[9]
6. ICNA has supported convicted cop-killer H. Rap Brown: A December 2001 ICNA South East region convention had a special program honoring convicted murderer Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (aka H. Rap Brown) who is serving a life sentence for killing a sheriff’s deputy.[10]
7. ICNA featured Muslim Brotherhood extremist leader Sheik Al-Qaradawi (banned from entry into the U.S. since 1999) stating that democracy is permitted only when it complies with Shariah law:  Writing in the ICNA magazine “The Message,” Qaradawi states “What we seek is that legislations and codes be within the limits of the flawless texts and the overall objectives of the Shari’ah and the Islamic Message.”[11]
8. ICNA promotes hatred of Jews and Christians: The curricula for ICNA’s women’s organization promotes jihad, shariah rule, hatred of Jews and Christians, and warns of the “dangers of secular Western thoughts and ideas.”[12]
9. ICNA, ICNA Relief and ICNA Helping Hand funded the Al-Khidmat Welfare Society and Al-Khidmat Foundation, which then gave Hamas – a designated terrorist organization -  $99,000 in 2006[13].
   

You’ve seen the facts.  Be prepared.  Don’t get scammed by ICNA.

ICNA billboard in Tallahassee, Florida

South Dakota became the 9th state to protect freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press from lawfare and libel tourism on Friday, 8 March, when Governor Dennis Daugaard signed Free Speech Defense Act legislation into law.

The Free Speech Defense Act in South Dakota was authored by Senator Dan [...]]]>

South Dakota became the 9th state to protect freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press from lawfare and libel tourism on Friday, 8 March, when Governor Dennis Daugaard signed Free Speech Defense Act legislation into law.

The Free Speech Defense Act in South Dakota was authored by Senator Dan Lederman.

The Free Speech Defense Act protects Americans from the practice of “Libel Tourism,” in which plaintiffs choose to file lawsuits in jurisdictions which do not provide the same protections of free speech as the U.S. Constitution.

Libel Tourism is especially active against anything published that deals with international terrorism. U. S. publishers, online retailers and distinguished news organizations are so scared of Libel Tourism, many have begun to refrain from publishing items dealing with international terrorism and must increasingly vet their stories according to foreign libel laws due to the potential for global distribution made possible on the internet.. This stifling of free speech, due to the fear of foreign lawsuits, is a pernicious form of foreign censorship.

Free Speech Defense legislation is often referred to as “Rachel’s Law,” because it was largely prompted by the case of U.S. author Rachel Ehrenfeld, who refused to accept a British judgment against her favoring a Saudi financier she’d investigated. Saudi Prince Khalid bin Mahfouz and two members of his family sued Ms. Ehrenfeld, an Israeli-born writer and United States citizen over her 2003 book on terrorist financing, Funding Evil. Ms. Ehrenfeld asserted in the book that Mahfouz and his family provided financial support to Islamic terrorist groups. The book was not published in the United Kingdom, but 23 copies of her book had been purchased online through into the UK, and excerpts from the book had been published globally on the ABC News web site. Ehrenfeld claimed that the suit in England violated her First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and chose not to defend the action. In a default judgement, the British court ruled that Ehrenfeld should pay £10,000 to each plaintiff plus costs, apologize for false allegations and destroy existing copies of her book.

In August of 2010, the Free Speech Protection Act passed Congress and was signed into law on the federal level, but the federal legislation is essentially toothless and includes a loophole which serves to deny defendants in the US due process, thus necessitating legislation on the state level.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with tax-exempt status [...]]]> The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America is a mainstream Islamic law organization based in America and tasked with providing guidance and research on Islamic jurisprudence (Shariah). The statement below is from the “About” page on their website:

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with tax-exempt status under Internal Revenue Section 501(c)(3). It was established in response to the growing need of an Islamic jurisprudence specific to Muslims in the West. Its main goal is to uphold authentic standards using high academic standards, moderate approach and a rejection of extremism.

AMJA’s influence reaches far beyond the walls of mosques and Islamic Centers. Its work strengthens the moral character of society by developing the leadership capacities of Imams (religious leaders). Equipped with continued passion and tenacity to their work, AMJA scholars, experts, and Imams lead the Muslim community into a better understanding of the practice of the religion of Islam in Western societies.

Apart from our renowned scholars, AMJA also caters to the needs of Imams by dedicating an annual Imams Conference that allows them access to one-on-one interaction with scholars, network with other Imams throughout the US and Canada, and be exposed to novel and new research about contemporary fiqhi issues.

AMJA’s library is known for its wide scope of detailed research. AMJA prides itself in the great number of publications on issues of Islamic jurisprudence in areas of sociology, economics, law, and even family matters.

AMJA is fortunate to have a dedicated  Board of Directors, Fatwa Committee, Fatwa Advisory Board, and Experts in various fields.

AMJA’s rejection of “extremism” makes what we are about to disclose all the more disturbing. The Secretary-General of AMJA, Salah Al-Sawy,  issued a fatwa on an Arabic language web site which does not appear on AMJA’s English language web site. In that fatwa, Al-Sawy essentially declares that Muslims in America are waging “defensive jihad” through “jurisprudence,” and that Muslims in America are not strong enough at this point to wage “offensive jihad.”

This is not the first time that AMJA or one of its associates has issued a disturbing fatwa or made a worrying statement.

In fact, back in 2005, a paper was presented an an AMJA conference calling on Muslims to infiltrate the US legal system to work Shariah law into our courts:

In a 2007 Arabic paper presented at one of its conferences, AMJA even recommends that Muslims become judges and use deception to implement sharia law to the best of their ability. According to a non-verbatim translation, it says a Muslim judge in a non-Muslim country “must in his heart hate the man-made law” and “judge by the rulings of the Shari’ah as much as possible, even if by a ruse. [emphasis added]”

The AMJA commands Muslims in the West to remain committed to establishing “Shari’ah rule.” Another fatwa from Al-Sawy states that Muslims can only become American citizens if is no other viable option and “on the condition that they do not accept indefinitely the law and legislation of that country and being indefinite belonging to the nation of the non-Muslim country.”

http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/american-muslim-jurists-group-aspiring-towards-jihad

Sometimes the 1st amendment [...]]]> More and more evidence piles up all the time that America’s 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is unique in establishing freedom of speech, freedom of the press and free expression. In short, America’s standards of free speech simply do not exist elsewhere, not even in nations widely regarded as “free.”

Sometimes the 1st amendment results in speech or expression that some of us find offensive. Note that there is no statement in the constitution that grants anyone the right not to be offended. 

That isn’t the case in many jurisdictions, such as Canada, where a recent supreme court ruling solidified that nation’s continuing policy of limiting speech under the guise of “hate” laws.

You may not like the flyers that are the subject of the article linked below, but the facts of the case appear to suggest that free speech is the casualty here more than any “hate.” Where does one draw the line?

This is an example of why America’s standards of free speech must be safeguarded against transnationalist efforts to erode our constitutional rights:

http://www.theinterim.com/announcements/canadian-supreme-court-rules-against-free-speech/#

by Jerry Gordon (March 2013)

One group in the US that has arisen to defend those liberties is the American Public Policy Alliance (APPA or “the Alliance”), a “non-partisan IRC 503 (c) (4) advocacy organization. The national spokesperson for the Alliance is attorneyStephen M. Gelé of the [...]]]> An interview with Christopher W. Holton of the Center for Security Policy