Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

[Kirkhill]

"Islam will dominate the World"
"Muslims rise against the Crusaders"

Sudden image of dog chasing tail.  And no sense that any appeal to logic would prevail. :gloomy:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Canadian Muslim Lobby Rejects New Terror Laws
Israel National News
26 Feb, News Brief is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

The Canadian Muslim lobby, CAIR-CAN, has launched a campaign against new legislation designed to help intelligence and law enforcement officials in their struggle against terrorism at home, Shalom Toronto reports.

The organization issued a statement issued calling Muslims in Canada to join acts of protest against the legislation, Bill S-7.

The law empowers security forces to make preventive arrests, avoid disclosing evidence to the suspect when necessary and allows them to require prisoners to testify behind closed doors before a judge. The judge, for his part, has the authority to impose a prison sentence of up to one year, if the suspect does not cooperate.

Here's a bit from CAIR-CAN's 22 Feb 13 statement ....

The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR.CAN), a national Muslim civil liberties organization, is calling on supporters and concerned Canadians to immediately contact their federal Members of Parliament asking them to vote against Bill S-7 ....

.... with a bit more in the attached news release.

More on Bill S-7 here - next step:  back to the House of Commons for Third Reading.

And a bit of background on CAIR-CAN here:

.... Consider some background on CAIR-CAN, courtesy 2011 testimony by security analyst David Harris before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Harris, director of the International and Terrorist Intelligence Program at INSIGNIS Strategic Research, has been honoured internationally for his work as a counterterrorism expert.

He pointed out to the Senators that CAIR-CAN is the Canadian wing of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has not only funded by Saudi Arabian sources, but has been named by the U.S. Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator connected to the “largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation criminal prosecution.” He noted that the prosecution “achieved numerous convictions.”

Furthermore, CAIR-CAN, along with its parent organization, is named as a defendant in the New York City 9/11 lawsuit involving the family of John P. O’Neill, the FBI counterterrorism agent killed in the World Trade Centre attack on Sept. 11, 2001.

CAIR-CAN sometimes gives the appearance of takes its marching orders from its American parent, said Harris, pointing out that under its first chair, Sheema Khan, CAIR-CAN, like U.S. organization, launched various unsuccessful ‘libel lawfare’ suits against those who questioned the group’s activities or motives.

Specifically, Harris reminded the Senators of the “libel lawfare jihad” when CAIR and CAIR-CAN sued various Canadian and American journalists and commentators who questioned the history and agenda of the two affiliated groups. The intent of the lawsuits was “to silence questions about CAIR and CAIR-CAN,” Harris told the committee.

According to Harris, several of CAIR’s senior staff, as well as others connected to the organization, have been convicted and imprisoned for terrorism-related offences. American security experts have described the organization as “Hamas front group an a Muslim Brotherhood front organization.” (See attached articles below.)

Of course, Harris noted, CAIR-CAN associates have repeatedly asserted that their organization is independent of the American group, with its own board of directors and Canadian incorporation. This claim is was contradicted, however, by Sheema Khan who, in 2003, swore an affidavit for the Ontario Supreme Court in connection with a trademark dispute. In the affidavit Khan “states categorically that CAIR-CAN is under the direction and control of the American CAIR organization.” Moreover, Khan, while a senior official of CAIR-CAN, also served on the board of CAIR.

Some journalists have questioned CAIR-CAN’s affiliations, Harris noted, referring to a 2006 article by David Frum that pointed out that 70 per cent of CAIR-CAN revenues went to CAIR.

Muslims, too, have also questioned CAIR-CAN’s bona fides. Author Tarek Fatah, in a 2008 article in the Calgary Herald, observed that CAIR and CAIR-CAN “seem to sing from the same jihadi hymn book.” ....

 

[OldSolduer]

Canadian Muslim Lobby Rejects New Terror Laws
Israel National News
26 Feb, News Brief is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

The Canadian Muslim lobby, CAIR-CAN, has launched a campaign against new legislation designed to help lintelligence and law enforcement officials in their struggle against terrorism at home, Shalom Toronto reports.

The organization issued a statement issued calling Muslims in Canada to join acts of protest against the legislation, Bill S-7.

The law empowers security forces to make preventive arrests, avoid disclosing evidence to the suspect when necessary and allows them to require prisoners to testify behind closed doors before a judge. The judge, for his part, has the authority to impose a prison sentence of up to one year, if the suspect does not cooperate.

I am a bit gun shy of laws that allow a judge to imprison someone for a year for failing to cooperate. I'm also gunshy of "preventative arrests" . It appears to me we are heading down the road that will allow police to arrest you on rumour and innuendo.

And that is not the Canada I know.

Please correct me if I have read this the wrong way.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm good with it.

 

[57Chevy]

I am a bit gun shy of laws that allow a judge to imprison someone for a year for failing to cooperate. I'm also gunshy of "preventative arrests" . It appears to me we are heading down the road that will allow police to arrest you on rumour and innuendo.

And that is not the Canada I know.

Please correct me if I have read this the wrong way.

I have similar thoughts, especially being arrested on rumours.
You never know what kind of crap others may be saying about you behind your back.
And the worst part is that it would allow them (The Law) to not tell you what was said about you.
In reality, Law enforcers would be really busy handling a shytload of false accusations.
How would it make their job easier ?

Sounds like a bad act in a lousy play. :facepalm:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The law empowers security forces to make preventive arrests

>avoid disclosing evidence to the suspect when necessary

>allows them to require prisoners to testify behind closed doors before a judge

>The judge, for his part, has the authority to impose a prison sentence of up to one year, if the suspect does not cooperate.

Without knowing the context and details any further, each of the four points as described above is intolerable.  However, you don't have to think very far to realize that points two and three are subject to the need to protect information which, publicly released, could compromise national security interests "seriously" (~"secret") or "gravely" (~"top secret").  A system of justice must function openly and transparently, otherwise it is by definition incapable of serving its purpose (it can not be just or achieve justice).

 

[GAP]

Students Told to Call 9-11 Hijackers “Freedom Fighters”
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/students-told-to-call-9-11-hijackers-freedom-fighters.html
By Todd Starnes

An Advanced Placement World Geography teacher at a Texas high school who encouraged students to dress in Islamic clothing also instructed them to refer to the 9-11 hijackers not as terrorists – but as “freedom fighters,” according to students who were in the class.

Students at Lumberton High School were also told to stop referring to the Holocaust as Genocide – instead they were told to use the term “ethnic cleansing.”

John Valastro, the superintendent of the Lumberton Independent School District, told Fox News that the teacher did absolutely nothing wrong.

“What is more dangerous – fear and ignorance or education and understanding,” he asked. “From our standpoint, we are here to educate the kids.”

Valastro said the teacher involved is a 32-year veteran who was simply following state teaching guidelines.

“I don’t think my freshman-level teacher was trying to politicize radical Islam or anything like that,” he told Fox News. “I don’t think our teacher has..to my knowledge ever converted a single student to Islam.”
A Texas mom became outraged after she discovered a Facebook photo of her child wearing Islamic garb.

A Texas mom became outraged after she discovered a Facebook photo of her child wearing Islamic garb.

The Islamic lessons in the small public high school generated national attention after a photograph of four female students wearing burqas surfaced on Facebook.

April LeBlanc’s 15-year-old daughter was one of the students in the photograph. She told Fox News that many parents in the district feel betrayed by school officials.

“My biggest thing is not the burqa,” she said. “That was the key to opening up the rest. It’s scary how far they dove into the Islamic faith. It’s scary what they taught my daughter. Who’s in charge of this? How did our superintendent let this slip through the cracks?”

LeBlanc said the students were told that they could no longer use the terms suicide bomber or terrorist. Instead, they were instructed to use the words “freedom fighters.”

“This teacher taught her that a freedom fighter is when they give their life for the Holy War – and that they’re going to go to heaven,” she told Fox News. “They were saturating these kids in Islam and my daughter is an American Christian child.”

Madelyn LeBlanc told Fox News that it was clear her teacher was very uncomfortable lecturing the students.

“I do have a lot of sympathy for her,” the 15-year-old said. “At the very beginning she said she didn’t want to teach it but it was in the curriculum.”

Her mother added that it was her impression that the teacher did not agree with the quote about calling the terrorists freedom fighters and laced her lecture with sarcasm.

During a lesson on Judaism, LeBlanc said the teacher told the class, “Students, I’m supposed to be politically correct and tell you that the Holocaust was not Genocide. It was an ethnic cleansing.”
more on link

 

[George Wallace]

I think there is a very vast difference between "Freedom Fighter" and "Religious Zealot".  I would not have called the "Spanish Inquisition" a group of "Freedom Fighters". 

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think there is a very vast difference between "Freedom Fighter" and "Religious Zealot".  I would not have called the "Spanish Inquisition" a group of "Freedom Fighters".

If you believe that the only way to achieve salvation in eternity is through one, specific sect of one religion then, surely, you must, equally, believe that doing whatever it takes to bring everyone to the one, true, all powerful god (the one in which you believe) is "liberating" them from false gods and hell and so forth. Isn't that fighting for "freedom?" Are you not, therefore, a legitimate "freedom fighter?"

We make a serious strategic blunder if we pooh-pooh beliefs: they are powerful forces for change.

 

[Journeyman]

By Todd Starnes

blah blah blah

Todd is the author of Dispatches From Bitter America — endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. Click here to get your copy!

Ah, well, say no more.

 

[GnyHwy]

I'm good with it.

I am also.  I find this similar to CCTV or sound tapping debates.  I say, if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.  If what you are doing moves you far enough up the police's priority list that they feel the need to arrest you, then it is quite likely that you should be arrested.  A bit of trust has to be involved with the officials we put in place, otherwise we are potentially impeding their efforts, and when time can be the difference between a lot of people being harmed, I think it's good preemptive measure.

>The law empowers security forces to make preventive arrests

>avoid disclosing evidence to the suspect when necessary

>allows them to require prisoners to testify behind closed doors before a judge

>The judge, for his part, has the authority to impose a prison sentence of up to one year, if the suspect does not cooperate.

Without knowing the context and details any further, each of the four points as described above is intolerable.  However, you don't have to think very far to realize that points two and three are subject to the need to protect information which, publicly released, could compromise national security interests "seriously" (~"secret") or "gravely" (~"top secret").  A system of justice must function openly and transparently, otherwise it is by definition incapable of serving its purpose (it can not be just or achieve justice).

Let's go one at a time with these, because once again, I don't see the problem, and don't really see much of a difference from what we already do.  It's just semantics to me.

>The law empowers security forces to make preventive arrests   Do we not already do this?  If the police have reasonable suspicion, they are going to arrest you.  This may loosen the reigns a bit,  but perhaps that is what is needed to make timely arrests.  What they need for their argument are stats that prove that there were times when police couldn't make a preemptive arrest, and something horrible happened because of it.

>avoid disclosing evidence to the suspect when necessary  We do this already too.  Investigators never give up sensitive info or evidence, especially when trying to figure out the truth and get confessions.  Withholding or twisting the truth when investigating is the only way to get the truth.  The proper evidence should and will be given to the accused prior to trial, not during the investigation.

>allows them to require prisoners to testify behind closed doors before a judge  Does it need to be in the open?  Once again, placing trust in the authorities we have put to task.

>The judge, for his part, has the authority to impose a prison sentence of up to one year, if the suspect does not cooperate.  This one's a tough one, and a year seems long, but I can't imagine it would be used hastily.  Do we not already do this with "held without bail"?  As well, if charged with terrorism which is similar to an act of war, how long do you keep a POW before he is to be tried?  What if the investigation is so complex that one year isn't enough?

Until we truly separate church from state, rhetoric and personal opinions from fact, and ultimately all the noise that confuses these issues, no recognizable progress can be made.

To allow the he said she said crap to convolute our courts is a waste of resources without any foreseeable end state.

 

[GAP]

>The judge, for his part, has the authority to impose a prison sentence of up to one year, if the suspect does not cooperate.
This one's a tough one, and a year seems long, but I can't imagine it would be used hastily.  Do we not already do this with "held without bail"?  As well, if charged with terrorism which is similar to an act of war, how long do you keep a POW before he is to be tried?  What if the investigation is so complex that one year isn't enough?

Why not have this reviewed by a second judge/panel within 30 days of the sentence....this would give oversight.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Frankly making the left-wing peace loving youths spend a day or even a few living within the constraints of a fundamental Islamic society, might be a very good idea. Also part way through switch the female and males roles.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If we already have laws which allow pre-emptive arrests, we do not need to loosen them.  Statistics which count horrible outcomes which *might* have been prevented are irrelevant for two reasons: the numbers will be manipulated, and security-no-matter-the-cost is a weak principle by which to structure a system of justice.

If there is an assurance that all evidence will be disclosed at trial, that is all that is needed.  If the legislation allows some evidence to be hidden from the defence, the legislation must not be allowed to stand.

Authorities whose proper function depends on trust must be permitted as little free rein of trust as possible.  "Authorities" are people no different from any others.  Their function will be perverted by their desires and needs.

If a suspect is not in contempt of court, there should be no grounds for punishment.  If a suspect is in contempt of court, the law already provides.  Nothing new is needed.

Fundamentally: if this is all just "semantics", then no new laws are needed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:goodpost:  Thanks for that Brad; I agree without reservation. +300

 

[GnyHwy]

First, I will admit that I am out of my league here, and have not read the details of this the way a lawyer getting paid to do so is.  But, from my many times arguing the what ifs of ROEs, and understanding levels of authority and clearances of fire, I can relate to this topic.  As well, considering there are very few legal experts on this site, it would be pretty quiet if it were only experienced persons were posting.

Let's hit your points one at a time again, not necessarily in order.

If we already have laws which allow pre-emptive arrests, we do not need to loosen them.  Statistics which count horrible outcomes which *might* have been prevented are irrelevant for two reasons: the numbers will be manipulated, and security-no-matter-the-cost is a weak principle by which to structure a system of justice.

Perhaps it is not just a matter of loosening them, but also a matter of defining them better, and lowering the level of control to a level that can act in a timely manner under clear and concise guidelines.  The laws can be widened while getting more detailed and concise at the same time.

If there is an assurance that all evidence will be disclosed at trial, that is all that is needed.  If the legislation allows some evidence to be hidden from the defence, the legislation must not be allowed to stand.

If we are talking about witholding evidence at a trial or having "secret" evidence then yes, I agree with you, that it should remain illegal.  But, witholding and tainting evidence during the investigation is just good police work.  Protecting witnesses is another issue that falls into this category as well.

Authorities whose proper function depends on trust must be permitted as little free rein of trust as possible.  "Authorities" are people no different from any others.  Their function will be perverted by their desires and needs.

This is the one I suspect we are the furthest apart on.  I think you are out on a limb with the perverted comment as well; that is likely rare, and we have processes to deal with that.  Without freedom to act, and the another layer for approval, timeliness is an issue.  I suspect, the methods and tools of policing, particularly electronic measures have developed to a point where our laws don't support them the way they should.  Further, why can't decisions be made at lower levels?  If they are given the training, and authority, and have the oversight, they are probably the best persons to be making the decisions because they have the best situational awareness.  Relaying report after report to a higher authority that may or may not read it thoroughly is not only untimely, but potentially harmful to the investigation. i.e. the higher authority will steer the investigation based on incomplete information.

If a suspect is not in contempt of court, there should be no grounds for punishment.  If a suspect is in contempt of court, the law already provides.  Nothing new is needed.

Are you suggesting that we not be able to hold persons without bail?

Fundamentally: if this is all just "semantics", then no new laws are needed.

Perhaps we don't need new ones, just expansion and clarity on the current ones. It is just semantics to me, but not to lawyers that get paid to write this stuff, and police that need the clarity in order to carry out their duties.  By not having clarity, and asking officers to call home to ask questions anytime a decision needs to be made, not only hinders them physically, but also mentally. 

I think we have all seen the delegation of authority in the military be passed down to lower levels more frequently in recent times.  Why wouldn't it be the same for policing?  The training and methods have improved, why shouldn't the laws?

 

[Sythen]

I hope its just a typo, but please clarify what you mean by this?

  But, witholding and tainting evidence during the investigation is just good police work.

 

[GnyHwy]

I hope its just a typo, but please clarify what you mean by this?

It is not a typo. In hindsight, tainting was a very poor choice of words.:nod: I am referring to interrogating suspects and witnesses. 

Ex. There are crazy crackpots out there that will confess to crimes.  Copy cat serial killers come to mind.  There are also criminals that will confess as scapegoats, to things in order to cover the bigger picture and mislead the police.  When the police change, lie, or twist the details of an investigation i.e. crime was committed in a blue car instead of the actual white car that committed the crime, the people who are lying become transparent, because they will make claims based on the police's "evidence" rather than the truth.

I also think that some people blur the difference between disclosing evidence for a trial and disclosing it for an investigation.  They are two different things.

 

[Sythen]

I see what you're saying and appreciate the clarification. Its why I didn't break out the pitchfork right away, because I assumed I was misunderstanding your point

 

[jollyjacktar]

It is not a typo. In hindsight, tainting was a very poor choice of words.:nod: I am referring to interrogating suspects and witnesses. 

Ex. There are crazy crackpots out there that will confess to crimes.  Copy cat serial killers come to mind.  There are also criminals that will confess as scapegoats, to things in order to cover the bigger picture and mislead the police.  When the police change, lie, or twist the details of an investigation i.e. crime was committed in a blue car instead of the actual white car that committed the crime, the people who are lying become transparent, because they will make claims based on the police's "evidence" rather than the truth.

I also think that some people blur the difference between disclosing evidence for a trial and disclosing it for an investigation.  They are two different things.

Try, as we'd say, "an investigative technique".  That's more accurate.