How Two Al-Qaeda Fundraisers Were Set Free

Pages: 1 2

But Muntasser and Al-Monla had a lot of firepower in their corner, including Susan Estrich, Dukakis’ campaign manager, former Massachusetts ACLU President Harvey Silverglate, and Kathleen Sullivan, a former dean of Stanford, and a partner at Quinn Emanuel, who had reportedly been under consideration by the Obama Administration as a Supreme Court nominee.

Estrich and Silverglate had argued that the calls to Jihad fell under free speech and freedom of religion. Al-Hussam’s bloodthirsty ravings were described by the duo as “taking positions and reporting on developments in foreign battles” and the Jihadist texts, including one by Abdullah Azzam, as, “publishing and distributing books that discuss and espouse controversial ideas about religious conflict in the contemporary world.”

“Care was set up to advance religious goals,” Estrich and Silverglate wrote. “Jihad is a religious concept; Zakat is a religious obligation; support for the Mujahideen is, according to certain interpretations of the Koran, a religious command.”

The defense of religious freedom was all the more repulsive, considering the racist turn that the case had taken at one point, when a defense lawyer badgered a prosecution witness over whether he had learned Torah.

But Sullivan, Estrich and Silverglate were not the only ones fighting the good Jihadi fight. Also stepping up to Muntasser and Al-Monla’s defense was Libya’s ambassador to the United States.

Ali Suleiman Aujali had been Gaddafi’s ambassador, before making a timely leap to the rebels. This made him a hero in the eyes of some naïve and foolish people. In 2009 however, Aujali had authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal, defending the Libyan celebrations of the return of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

After defending Meghari, Aujali’s credibility should have been particularly low. Nevertheless the ambassador penned a letter claiming that the Libyan government was closely following the case because Muntasser’s uncle, Mohammed Muntasser, had been a former prime minister of Libya, and that Care’s work had taken place when the Jihad had been a popular cause in Libya. Libyan political influence had helped set the Lockerbie bomber free, no doubt it also played its part in Muntasser’s case.

But the dominant factor in the Muntasser/Al-Monla case, as in so many others was the unwillingness of an entrenched legal system to come to grips with a new reality in which it was on the front lines of a covert war against the United States. For many lawyers and judges, freeing guilty men had been a way of making a statement about the government trespassing on their turf. That practice continued even as they were no longer dealing with drug kingpins, but with members in a secret army dedicated to mass murder and world domination.

The adversarial system is an effective way of protecting Americans in criminal cases, but it’s also an effective tool for dividing the system and exploiting those divisions to successfully pursue a war against America.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Pages: 1 2

  • Anamah

    What's the problem of this people? Bribery, ideology, or intimidation?

  • oldtimer

    But the children selling lemonade on the corner are shut down and fined…..what is wrong here…

  • StephenD

    The reason why this happens is because our courts still view Islam as strictly a religious system rather than what it is; a tyrannical political system that, through Jihad, desires to take over the world using force when necessary and any other means when force isn't necessary.
    The Devil knew what he was doing when the first two lies ever told to mankind hold so much power to this day. "You will not surely die" and "You will be as G_d."
    People want to believe this and so a system that promises them Paradise with 72 virgins (You will not surely die) and giving them the power of life and death (you will be as G_d) through Jihad is enticing. Too bad it will end with the same prize the "Father of Lies" has in store; the fiery pits of hell.

  • mrbean

    The naivety of liberal judges and liberals in the DoJ about the real world and the evils of communism and of Islamic Jihadists have cost more lives than one can count.

  • SoCalMike

    Estrich, Sullivan, Silvergate and Saylor….
    You gotta love Democrats.
    They have treason etched into their bones and running through their veins so they feel like their feet aren't quite on the ground if they aren't helping jihadis or hindering and undermining those fighting jihadis.
    Save a whale, harpoon a traitor!

  • RUI

    Beggars the comment "hello Saylor"…
    couldn't resist.

  • ctobserver

    I find much to dislike in this post. According to Harvey Silverglate’s book Three Felonies a Day, this case was based on innuendo and stretching of federal law.

    First, the charges in the case did not allege terrorism, support for terrorism, incitement to terrorism, or anything else to do with terrorism. Rather, the charges were that the defendants defrauded the IRS by omitting from their 501(c)(3) application some information that would allegedly have been relevent to the IRS. Not information that was requested or required, but information that the IRS might have found important if it had been presented.

    Second, this application was made in 1993, long before Bin Laden had declared war on the US. At least one of the defendants (Muntasser) had left the Care organization by 1996. The writer omits dates in his account – this makes it look like the defendants supported the organization that committed the 9/11 terror attacks when all the activity in question occurred years before.

    In this case, the government apparently thought the defendants were supporting terrorism, but couldn’t even mount a credible accusation. So, they got a conviction of faulty paperwork, based on allegely incomplete answers to ambiguous questions on an IRS application. This effort was unworthy of the US legal system. If such tactics can be allowed against these defendants, they can be used in the future against anyone the government doesn’t like. The reason to insist on the protection of the law is so that we can all count on the protection of the law for ourselves.

    If the writer has any actual information that the defendants were engaged in terrorism or supported terrorists, he should present that, rather than the innuendo and guilt by association he engaged in here.