Sunday, February 28, 2010

'See No Islam'

It’s not just former U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson who believes that a jihadist like al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be seen strictly as a “common criminal.” Pulaski County, Arkansas prosecutor Larry Jegley, responsible for prosecuting Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad for shooting to death Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula at a Little Rock recruiting center last June, characterizes the attack as nothing more than “a straightforward murder case.” (“'See-No-Islam' Strategy Disgraces Fallen Soldier”).

There’s a pattern here. It took President Obama three days before he had something to say about the Arkansas attack. (By comparison, it only took him a few hours to give a press conference about the Chile earthquake yesterday.) What he did say about the Arkansas attack betrayed no awareness of its Islamist motivation, calling it “a senseless act of violence.”

“Senseless?,” asks Diane West:

This was an act of jihad, and both soldiers, along with the fallen and wounded at Fort Hood, should receive the Purple Hearts they deserve. Muhammad himself has made his jihadist intentions against the U.S. military clear, beginning first with his statement to police, and later in collect phone calls to the Associated Press from Pulaski County jail. On June 9, the AP quoted Muhammad calling the attack "a act, for the sake of God, for the sake of Allah, the Lord of all the world, and also a retaliation on U.S. military." He wasn't guilty of murder, he said, "because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason." Such a definition jibes with Islamic law, which, for example, permits the killing of "non-Muslims at war with Muslims." Muhammad also told the AP he wanted revenge against the U.S. military for its perceived offenses against Muslims and the Koran.
But in spite of knowing all this, Prosecutor Jegley told the New York Times he:
“considers (the attack) a straightforward murder case and that they intend to try it without delving into Mr. Muhammad’s religious conversion, political beliefs or possible ties to terrorists. ‘When you strip away what he says, self-serving or not, it's just an awful killing,’ said Larry Jegley. . . ‘It's like a lot of other killings we have.’”
“It is?” asks Diane West:

Do “a lot” of middle-class murder defendants in Pulaski County convert to Islam in 2004 and worship at an Ohio mosque frequented by convicted terrorists in 2005 and 2006? Do “a lot” of them travel to Yemen in 2007 where, ABC News reported, “it is believed that Muhammad attended the Damaj Institute, an Islamic institute attended by a number of radicalized U.S. converts (including) John Walker Lindh? Do “a lot” get themselves arrested for overstaying their visa in Yemen, and possessing a fake Somali passport? Do "a lot" finally get deported back to the States in 2008? (Bio highlights courtesy the NEFA Foundation.) Do “a lot” fire on U.S. soldiers at a military recruiting center?

I'm not the only one confounded by the prosecutor's inexplicable and highly disturbing decision to follow a see-no-Islam strategy. Muhammad himself recently wrote to the judge claiming he was encountering legal obstacles to changing his plea to guilty. Avowing affiliation with al-Qaida as a member of "Abu Basir's Army," Muhammad further emphasized the fact that the incident was a “a Jihadi Attack ... justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad -- To fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims.”
Daris Long, Pvt. Long’s father, said that both his fallen son and Pvt. Ezeagwula were heroes. “They weren't on the battlefield, but apparently, the battlefield’s here.”

He’s right. It is here. Or else we really have forgotten what happened on September 11.

As Diane West tries to remind the Arkansas prosecutor:
This was an act of war against the United States and should be treated as such. Especially for the sake of the fallen, this is no time for the prosecutor to run off the battlefield.


Anonymous said...

What sort of criminal charges could be brought against these home grown jihadis? If not prosecuted by a military tribunal, wouldn't the case for what motivated the crime (Islam/Hatred) fall under the dubious hate crimes laws?

I realize there are few who have adopted the hate crime laws. But, what alternative could they charge him with?

Anonymous said...

Has the U.S. successfully prosecuted and jailed anyone on terrorism charges, since 9/11.

Locally we had the very first post 9/11 case that at first was successful. The men went to jail. Mr. Convertino had the misfortune of being the prosecutor. He did a great job.

Someone within our justice system/FBI went after Convertino and ruined his career. The process ended up freeing the terrorists.