10 Failures of the US Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat

Center for Security Policy | Nov 12, 2010
By Patrick Poole

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.” At the heart of the Team B II project is the belief that the Team A approach of our government to the Islamist threat, i.e. the received wisdom of the political, law enforcement, military and intelligence establishment, has proved to be a serial failure. In fact, we would be hard-pressed to find many instances in which the government Team A actually got it right. Rather than attempt to get it right, the establishment seems content to double-down on failure.

What follows are the most egregious and glaring failures of our national security agencies’ approach. This whitepaper compiles a representative sample of ten cases, but easily a hundred or more cases could be presented. These examples range chronologically from incidents that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to events that have happened within the past few weeks prior to the publication of this paper. From the first Bush 41 Administration to the current Obama Administration, the degree of failure is non-partisan. These cases also cover the gamut of federal agencies and departments, along with a few examples on the state and local level, showing that no segment of our government holds a monopoly on failure on this issue. The problem is universal.

Each of these cases is rooted in a fundamental failure by those government officials responsible to identify the nature of the threat. At their root these examples demonstrate what Team B II author and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has called “willful blindness.” For government officials who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, however, their “willful blindness” is a breach of their professional duty to know, to understand and to respond.

It should also be noted that each of these cases has been brought to the public and elected officials’ attention before. In most cases, no action was taken despite public outcry. We hope that the winners of last week’s election will finally take responsibility for the nation’s security and take action against this threat of Shariah and Islamic terrorism.

Sources are provided so anyone– media, public, and policymaker– can understand the extent of the problem and investigate how our political, civic and religious leadership have allowed this threat to advance so far.

Posted on 10 Nov 10 by Center for Security Policy

Where the government (both federal and local) has failed here in America is by allowing Islam to advance throughout our borders, and allowing shari’a law to advance, like the Muslim Brotherhood has pledged in 1991 for America’s takeover. We have Dearborn, MI. as a highly shari’a compliant type American city, we have government officials that cater to the Muslim Brotherhood and it’s fronts, we have city officials that are Muslims and try to advocate shari’a in their cities (i.e L.A. County Sheriff Baca) or Muslim sympathizers (i.e. the city commissioners in Fort Collins, CO). Islam is taking over America because of the willful blinded eye that many people and government officials have. Islamic Muslim are working on building their Islamic Centers and their mega Mosques…Mosques, historically have been built by Islamic Muslims to proclaim “victory” over the “infidels” or “children of the Book or scriptures” in that area…and as a reminder to the defeated “infidels” that they are not worthy to even live, but the followers of the religion of peace have showed them mercy, so they must show respect…they show respect by being second class citizens and doing slave type work, if they weren’t actually slaves, and also by paying jizya tax, or protection tax.

We need to all protest…not violently, not by burning Qur’ans, not by vandalizing Mosques, but by prayer and fasting, and on a consistent basis, bombard your local governmental officials concerning the advancement of shari’a law and its threat and the the fact the the unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation of funding terrorist organizations trial (and found guilty) and the radical Islamic organization that is working on taking over America, (the Muslim Brotherhood) that they need to be stopped, and state officials need to press anti-shari’a law amendments into the state’s constitutions like Tennessee did.

retired Don

FBI Official: Illinois Imam Wouldn’t Pass Background Check

FBI Official: Illinois Imam Wouldn’t Pass Background Check

IPT News
May 27, 2011

The FBI’s top agent in Chicago told Illinois State Police (ISP) officials that an imam under consideration to be the agency’s first Muslim chaplain wouldn’t pass a background test if it were up to his agency.

That comment came before the State Police initially approved Imam Kifah Mustapha’s appointment in 2009, a move they later rescinded after the Investigative Project on Terrorism published an article documenting Mustapha’s connections to a Hamas-support network.

Mustapha is suing the ISP claiming it violated his 1st and 4th Amendment rights in withdrawing its offer for the chaplain’s position. The suit claims the IPT report was flawed and the state had no legitimate grounds to reject him. As part of the lawsuit, Mustapha wants to see ISP and FBI records related to its background check of him.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office argued those records are protected from disclosure, in a motion filed Wednesday. In it, the government said FBI Chicago Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) Rob Grant had “several” conversations with ISP officials before Mustapha’s appointment in which he advised the ISP of Mustapha’s worrisome background.

“In each conversation, SAC Grant stated that Mustapha would not pass an FBI background check if he applied for an FBI chaplain position and then proceeded to explain the bases for his opinion,” the motion said.

Mustapha’s supporters say the ISP’s decision was “based on suspicion and paranoia,” which they blame on the IPT report. The story cited internal documents from the support network, called the Palestine Committee, which became public during a 2008 prosecution, and other court records.

Grant’s statements to ISP officials conducting the background check indicate the IPT story was not the first time the police had heard of Mustapha’s questionable background.

There is no reason to believe the information in the conversations could help prove Mustapha’s claim that the ISP’s decision was based on “discriminatory” reasons, wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Johnson. “Indeed, SAC Grant’s advice to ISP that Mustapha would not pass an FBI background check if he applied for an FBI chaplain position strongly suggests just the opposite.”

The government motion focuses on whether Mustapha’s lawyers can obtain material for discovery in the litigation and not on the factual nature of the issues that caught the ISP’s attention. Attorneys with the Council on American-Islamic Relations are representing Mustapha.

He was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and five former officials. In 2008, a Dallas jury convicted the defendants on more than 100 counts tied to illegally funneling money to Hamas. Mustapha served as a paid Holy Land Foundation employee from 1996 until the group’s assets were frozen by the federal government in 2001.

Mustapha also served as a member of a volunteer committee for the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). In testimony given in another case, Mustapha recalled donating money to HLF and “maybe” IAP. Like the Holy Land Foundation, the IAP was an arm of the Palestine Committee, which was created to promote the Hamas agenda financially and politically in the United States.

Additionally, Mustapha sang in a band that performed at HLF fundraisers. In one video, submitted as evidence in the HLF trial, Mustapha sings, “O mother, Hamas for Jihad. Over mosques’ loudspeakers, with freedom. Every day it resists with stones and the dagger. Tomorrow, with God’s help, it will be with a machine gun and a rifle.”

The FBI’s Grant, meanwhile, is known for his outreach in the Chicago Muslim community. In 2009, he attended a meeting of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago (CIOGC) to assure members that the FBI doesn’t targets mosques for investigations.

“The FBI unequivocally does not plant informants in mosques or any other houses of worship,” Grant said. He urged attendees to report any FBI agents acting in an inappropriate manner.

Though Grant predicted Mustapha could not pass an FBI background check, Mustapha was allowed to tour the National Counterterrorism Center and FBI headquarters in September 2010.

“If we thought he was a security risk, we wouldn’t have included him,” on the tour, which is part of the FBI’s Citizens’ Academy, said Chicago FBI spokesman Ross Rice.

According to the FBI Citizens’ Academy website, “Because of the classified investigative techniques discussed, nominees must also undergo a background check and get an interim security clearance.”

For a detailed profile of Mustapha’s ties to Hamas-linked groups, click here.

Related Topics: Civil suits

Read More: Kifah Mustapha, Illinois State Police, Holy Land Foundation, FBI, Rob Grant, Civil suits
Print Send Comments RSS
Share

Read more at: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2914/fbi-official-illinois-imam-wouldnt-pass

The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You about the Islamist Threat

By Erick Stakelbeck

Published by Regnery Publishing (May 2, 2011)

Review by Patrick Poole

As a counter-terrorism consultant, it is both frustrating and infuriating to listen to media figures and talking-heads discuss domestic Islamic terrorism. Anytime a Muslim is caught trying to kill Americans on American soil, these figures rush to tell us that these would-be terrorists are not known to have any connection to international terrorist groups, and therefore we shouldn’t be worried. But as we found out from the cases of Army Major Nidal Hasan and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, both were actually in communication with foreign terrorist organizations. (Hasan was emailing al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula chief Anwar al-Awlaki, and Shahzad had been commissioned by the Pakistani Taliban).

The message from the media: if a terrorist act isn’t connected to international terrorists, it really isn’t terrorism, but rather “violent extremism” or a “man-caused disaster.”

Another narrative floated by the establishment media in such circumstances: the so-called “lone wolf” jihadist is impossible to diagnose beforehand, and therefore the causes of such are random and ultimately unknowable.

The fact is that these “lone wolf” jihadists have rarely acted alone. We now know about the radicalization process — there are typically a whole host of actors and support networks pushing individuals through the radicalization pipeline. While these individuals and organizations may not have been directly involved in planning a terrorist attack, their participation in terms of indoctrinating would-be jihadists and providing religious justification for acts of violence is essential to the process.

The involvement of these support networks is almost never investigated by law enforcement or the establishment media. One of the few media figures on the terrorism beat who actually gets the problem is CBN News terrorism correspondent and Fox News terrorism analyst Erick Stakelbeck.

In his new book — The Terrorist Next Door: How the Government is Deceiving You about the Islamist Threat — Stakelbeck takes the reader on his journey through the world of Islamic terrorism. He recounts his experience interviewing al-Qaeda terrorist leaders (notably none of whom are living in caves, but in tony London suburbs), and his conversation with Noman Benotman, a former al-Qaeda operative and associate of Osama bin Laden. Stakelbeck has explored the shadowy world of how the international terrorist organization operates.

And he isn’t afraid to go into the belly of the beast: witness his investigation into a network of dozens of Islamic compounds scattered in rural areas across the U.S. The compounds are controlled by a terror-tied Pakistani cleric who has been videotaped conducting terrorist training sessions with his followers on bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations.

Stakelbeck also explores the bizarre and counterproductive policy of the U.S. government — time and again, they turn to those responsible for radicalizing American Muslims for advice on dealing with the radicalization problem.

One such example he cites is the case of Yasir Qadhi, who was invited by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to speak at a conference on the topic of radicalization. Not only had Qadhi complained about being on the U.S. government’s terror watch list, his associated media company IlmQuest sold audio CD sets of al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Qadhi was also an instructor in a two-week course hosted by his own organization — and attended by underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Qadhi also gave a sermon attacking “the hoax of the Holocaust.”

When other establishment media outlets interview Qadhi, such as CNN, do you think they make any mention of Qadhi’s extremist background or Saudi Wahhabi religious training?

Stakelbeck broke the story of terror associate Louay Safi — who was captured on federal wiretaps talking with Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in his terrorism trial — speaking on Islam to troops departing for Afghanistan at Fort Hood just weeks after Major Hasan’s shooting spree there that killed thirteen. Following the Fort Hood massacre, Safi had attributed the cause of the incident to “Islamophobia,” saying that “the extremist ideology response for violent outbursts is often rooted in the systematic demonization of marginalized groups.” After Stakelbeck’s report appeared, Safi was suspended as a military subcontractor.

Stakelbeck has also been willing to delve deeply into the taboo subject of the widespread extremism of the American Muslim community, and even on the impact such extremism has on American Muslims who dissent from it. Just one day after Anwar al-Awlaki issued a fatwa calling for the killing of millions of Americans, Stakelbeck found that –just a few miles from the White House — the largest Islamic store in the Washington, D.C., area featured a prominent display of Awlaki’s CDs and DVDs, along with other racist hate materials and books defending Islamic terrorism. When he interviewed the store’s owner (who quickly removed the Awlaki display), he was told that the materials were for sale because “they were very good sellers.” Indeed.

He has been willing to ask prominent U.S. Muslim leaders hard questions about their support for Islamic radicalism. His report last October exposed a Pennsylvania professor and Islamic leader who spoke at a rally denouncing Jews and encouraging the destruction of Israel. Needless to say, the professor — and officials from his university –refused to talk when asked for an interview.

Stakelbeck traveled to Dearborn, Michigan, and interviewed supposed “interfaith” leader Imam Mohammed Ali Elahi, who regularly consults with the Detroit FBI leadership. The imam quickly got tongue-tied after being asked about his open support for terrorist groups and the photographs on his own website that showed him with former Iranian dictator Ayatollah Khomeini and with leaders of Hezbollah.

Erick Stakelbeck’s reporting is a refreshing alternative to the drive-by coverage given to homegrown terrorism. When a large cell of would-be jihadists was busted in North Carolina in 2009, after all the networks had given their two-minute superficial coverage of the story and left the area, Stakelbeck continued to report with interviews of those who knew the suspects and provided new details about the case. When Tulsa, Oklahoma, resident Jamal Miftah was expelled and banned from his mosque for writing an editorial in the local newspaper attacking al-Qaeda, it was Erick Stakelbeck who was there to interview Miftah — not CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC. And while the media was huffing and puffing about opposition to the Ground Zero mosque last summer, Stakelbeck looked into the possible foreign funding sources for the wave of mega-mosque building occurring all over the country (he dedicates a chapter in his book to the topic).

These and other incidents from Stakelbeck’s reporting are covered in his book, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in learning more on the topic. It will certainly challenge many of the things you’ve heard from the establishment media and from our own government officials charged with addressing the homegrown terror threat. (Anyone remember Director of National Intelligence James Clapper telling Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “largely secular organization”?) There’s a reason why ten years after 9/11 we’re still flying blind in the War on Terror, and Stakelbeck explores those reasons.

I’ve been fortunate enough to work directly with Erick Stakelbeck on several stories going all the way back to 2007. He investigated the largest known al-Qaeda cell operating in Columbus, Ohio, and the role of an internationally known extremist preacher and Hamas cleric, Salah Sultan, associated with that cell who only lived a mile from my own home in Hilliard, Ohio. I am honored to not only know Erick Stakelbeck as a colleague and sometime collaborator, but also as a friend.

Notwithstanding any personal bias on my part, the reason you need to read his new book, The Terrorist Next Door, is because he is one of the few reporters out there willing to pursue and report a story no matter how ugly and politically incorrect the truth he uncovers. While our government and its allies in the establishment media assure us that the problem of homegrown Islamic terrorism is impossible to diagnose – unless, of course, they blame “Islamophobia” — Erick Stakelbeck’s ongoing reporting shows the problem is much simpler than our political and media elites will ever admit. And the warning he issues about the threat is one that every American needs to hear.

Patrick Poole is a regular contributor to Pajamas Media, and an anti-terrorism consultant to law enforcement and the military.

Muslims to push for sharia

• Patricia Karvelas
• From: The Australian
• May 17, 2011 12:00AM

Government says no to sharia law

Watch

Government says no to sharia law

The Attorney-General has offered an emphatic no to requests for the introduction of sharia law in Australia.

Play

0:00 / 1:16

Scrubber

mute

Share

Fullscreen

THE nation’s peak Muslim group is using the Gillard government’s re-embracing of multiculturalism to push for the introduction of sharia in Australia, but it says it would be a more moderate variety of Islamic law that fits with Australian values.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the government’s new multiculturalism policy, argues that Muslims should enjoy “legal pluralism”.

In an interview with The Australian, the organisation’s president, Ikebal Adam Patel, who wrote the submission, nominated family law and specifically divorce as an area where moderate interpretations of sharia could co-exist within the Australian legal system.

In the submission, the AFIC acknowledges some Muslims believe Islamic law is immutable, regardless of history, time, culture and location.

“They claim that Muslims may change, but Islam will not,” it says.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

Related Coverage

• Government says no to sharia law

• Quest for Sharia law is out of line Herald Sun, 1 day ago
• Victoria says no to Muslim grants Herald Sun, 1 day ago
• I hear ya on sharia, but please no hysteria Perth Now, 1 day ago
• Call for taxpayers to fund Muslim schools Adelaide Now, 1 day ago
• Imam wants sharia, but A-G says no way The Australian, 1 day ago

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

The AFIC argues this is not the case and sharia can be applied in a way that fits in to Australia and is not extreme.

“This means most of the regulations in Islamic law may be amended, changed, altered, and adapted to social change.

“Therefore, Muslims Australia-AFIC takes the position that Islamic law is changeable according to the requirements of different places and times, and therefore suits the values shared by Australian people,” the submission says.

A hardline reading of sharia confers unilateral divorce rights on men, while women who initiate divorce are stripped of their property and financial entitlements.

A more moderate interpretation and common practice in Islamic countries is to recognise divorce by mutual consent.

In the interview, Mr Patel said: “I’m saying that instead of letting the extremists within Islam take over the agenda, we are saying there is a path whereby it will work for all the communities in a moderate way.

“It is important for someone who is Muslim or a practising Jew that aspects of our religion which can be incorporated within the greater legal system are introduced.

“This is about personal issues about family, and won’t affect any other Australian,” he said.

“It’s about a system that does not impinge on the rights of any other Australian.”

In its submission to the inquiry, the AFIC says criticisms of sharia as being biased against women and treating them as second-class citizens are wrong.

“It is important for Muslims to seriously consider this criticism,” the submission says.

“But it is also important for the Australian government to respect the rights of Muslim women who want to keep and maintain the way they dress, eat and interact with others, as long as such behaviour does not inflict harm to others.

“Muslims in Australia should accept the Australian values, and Australia should provide a ‘public sphere’ for Muslims to practise their belief. It takes two to tango.

“This approach demands a compromise from Islam, which should be open to other values, and also to make a similar demand of Australia.

“It is not only Australian Muslims who should reconcile these identities, but all Australians.”

Mr Patel says the AFIC, as the peak body of Islamic organisations in Australia, “strongly supports that multiculturalism should lead to legal pluralism . . . and twin tolerations”.

The submission cites regulations governing Islamic finance and halal certification in Australia as examples of how legal pluralism can work.

British law since 1996 has allowed for alternative dispute resolution through sharia tribunals, the rulings of which are enforceable in county courts and the High Court.

The submission calls on the inquiry members to consider “hard questions” from Muslim communities.

“Muslims are required to have social integration with the majority of people in Australia: what does this really mean? Should Muslims remove the hijab, dress like others, drink alcohol and go to the pub to demonstrate they have actually integrated?”

In most Western countries, the submission notes, the idea of an “Islamic family tribunal or arbitration is likely to fuel the debate on radicalism and liberalism”.

“But is it true that Australia will never consider Islamic law?” it asks.

“It seems that in two areas, namely Islamic finance and halal food, the Australian government has been actively involved.

“So although the Attorney-General ruled out introducing Islamic law, or sharia, at the same time Australian financial institutions are encouraged to do much more to attract Muslim business by developing innovative products which comply with Islamic law.

“Apart from the economic motive, how can we reconcile the conflicting statement and fact?”